Memo to the “ladies” — If you are rude to a man you’re not interested in, word may get around and the guy you ARE interested in, may never try. It’s even worse if you put down your unwanted suitor PUBLICLY, in front of a crowd… NONE of those men will ever try. (Yes, i’ve even seen that.)

I think there is an even larger message here. Women in general have abused the courtship process beyond all sanity. Nuclear rejections are a part of it. So is the extension of the period of time women expect courtship. It used to be just a few years, and women felt a sense of urgency to make a choice as well as a great deal of pressure to stick with that choice once made. Now women think nothing of deciding they won’t consider marriage until after 25, quite often later. Yet even Christian women who do this still expect the benefits of courtship all the way through. They want to be taken on dates, wooed, etc. One thing a man knows about a woman as she gets older is many other men have likely wasted their romantic investment in her. She from that point of view becomes a bad bet for courtship. She may still be marriageable, but she isn’t worth a large one sided effort to find this out.

What we need to explain to young women is not only that their own behavior will determine how willing men are to foot the searching costs, but that the behavior of women in general has already changed the rules. The whole point of courtship is finding out if there is a match there. Footing this investment has become a losing proposition for men in many ways. She can’t expect the man to know that “she is different”, because this is what the process is about. In the past women enjoyed a free ride here, but it came at the cost of pressure to not dither and make marriage a priority. The pressure is gone now, and so is much of the free ride. So all a young woman can expect now is the new baseline limited courtship which men have adjusted to. The older she gets the less of this she should expect. If she handles this badly she will gain a reputation for such and will receive even less than the age adjusted baseline. But either way she can’t expect what women received in the past, and even that is less than what Disney has likely sold to her.

192 Responses to Women should reduce their expectations of courtship.

Well, there is also something about time. The rules in the old days were set up to guide and protect young women, often sheltered women, and encourage them to make good choices. These rules don’t apply when you act like a troll, and have done so for some years.

The classic dating rules are stupid to apply to a 30 yo lawyer, for instance. There is now no functional difference in age and status — in fact, she may see hers as higher.

When you are talking about 40 and 50 year olds, it is ridiculous unless it is a game like that noxious invention “date night”. It used to be called going to the opera. the ball, the movies…. or doing fun things together.

I do feel sorry for the young ones. They have no clue how they’ve been lied to, and no real-life experience (objective consequences) from which they might learn. Most of them will just keep following the script, bewildered by and resentful of the non-existent happy ending.

Sorry, but while no-fault divorce and forcing a man from his children are still very real possibilities, I think it’s insanity to entertain the idea of marrying younger women. What these women may evolve/devolve into later on can cause some very real damage to men. I do understand that women are more fertile while young but the risks heavily outweigh the rewards. Women are just too likely to fall prey to the mindset that their options become justifications to end a marriage.

I’m yet to date a woman that will not cause me troubles after some time. Basically women don’t know what they want and I rarely bother myself to ask.

There can never be a best choice, but people can weigh things and choose the “better” choice, Or as the ancients said “the not worst is the better”. Sometimes they cannot see more than a few months ahead in their lifes and they choose the worst, sometimes they see what is coming and they choose the better. And sometimes they are too greedy and they are trying to have everything in the same time.

Nuclear rejections ensure that the same guy gets no other attention from girls aware of the incident. A very obvious form of relational aggression.
Which is why men date younger: the cohort of unreasonable women would have poisoned any interaction, so it’s best to start off fresh.
A “pity relationship” is a payout waiting to happen.

I don’t think you could argue that a young attractive girl would need to lower her dating expectations. Many guys line up paid dates for her way in the hopes that their Lexus and payroll will convince her to settle down. Many guys will try to overlap her career and theirs just to be around her, so that they can convince her to settle down. Meanwhile she can sample from among any of them.

Why would she lower her expectations? To fulfill the expectations of someone lower than her? Hah- makes no sense for hypergamy. Her body is telling her to be a demure waif and let the aggressive guys duke it out socially so that she gets her pick of the litter. In a feminized society, that’s how the chips fall. The women with the most attractive power have the most ability to get guys lined up and competing for her. Doesn’t matter if she has 1 partner, 20, or 200. The most attractive women can still pull regularly, appear feminine and innocent, yet have a high partner count. That is the definition of a powerful woman freed by feminism. It is unfortunate that lesser powerful women who are less attractive or less feminine are not able to attract higher status men via the same script. But women aren’t built to understand how to shoot lower. If she is attracting marriageable stable men at the same time she is attracting indie-drummers, her choice is a no brainer.

The ‘patriarchy’ worked because women followed the script of separating themselves from a social life. They also followed the script to stay out of men’s affairs and the office. It helped the entire male sphere.

Imagine a cute girl standing by herself, facing twenty men on the other side of the room. Now one guy approaches her while the rest stand idly by. She knows that he must be alpha. All of the 19 others know that he is going to take her home and have sex with her. But since they do nothing to stop it, it makes him the most reproductively fit. They must instinctively fear him to let it happen.

But those men could have negotiated amongst themselves who would benefit the most by having her. Maybe they figure out that letting a less attractive guy connect with the girl could help the group recruit aid from an outside group of less attractive men.

This is an analogy of why men controlling access to sex is a stronger system than men competing directly for access to sex. This is why marriage in the old sense worked. This is why western civilization could conquer so much and expand so far. This is why it is out of luck now.

gritartistan, it would be more correct to say, “This is why [western civilization] is out of luck [at the moment].” We are not trapped in some steady-state hell. It is pretty obvious that the internal contradictions of the current system will soon end it. Reality is the great enemy of the escape into fantasy.

Why should any man court a woman? Courtship was for the purpose of a man looking to find a wife and start a family but now that marriage is nothing more than a glorified public declaration of love there’s no point to it.

Thanks to no fault divorce every marriage vow comes with a get of your vow free card making a mockery of the vows to begin with. Such a vow is meaningless and it does is change a man’s girlfriend into a girlfriend with a ring on her finger. The modern woman is no more legally and socially committed to a man after the ceremony than before so can one really call her a wife?

Marriage no longer gives a man a chance to have a family as any child born is regarded as primarily belonging to the mother whether she has a ring on her finger or not. It thus not only erases any difference between an illegitimate child and a legitimate one but since a man’s rights to such children are the same (virtually none) it removes any incentive for a man to marry. Toss in the states subsidization of single motherhood through child support and it’s obvious that the only true husband is the state.

Courtship was for a time when women offered more than just sex but the modern “independent” women who refuses to give up her “independence” doesn’t have anything to offer a man looking for a true wife.

Heh heh. Nuclear rejections have their up side though.
Men “good with quickly building relationships” have had many nuclear rejections in the past.
Practice builds such men.
So women who reject many men, may discover that those many men that they rejected were actually working to further his goals.
They could have said “yes”. But they decided to build the guy they wanted in reality, by saying “no”.
It’s certainly funny when you observe someone making lemonade from lemons 🙂

The problem here seems to be in expectations: The Alpha “courts” while looking for quick sex, while the Beta courts while actually looking for marriage. The women in this current picture are looking for an Alpha who will court them with a Beta’s objective. In our current society this is unlikely to happen, and since young women have been raised in a culture of self-esteem they feel they are being denied that to which they are entitled. Since they cannot lash out at the Alpha (doing so would damage her own prospects with Alphas) she verbally abuses the Beta (verbal abuse is an EXTREMELY common form of bullying in girls from a VERY early age). The problem is that women demand a “right” to Alphas who act like Betas without considering the mindset of the men involved, or even, for that matter, their own mindset (and best interests).

Girls with a high sexual market value don’t need to reduce their expectations. Girls with a low to average SMV don’t want to. As they run out of alphas, many women only reluctantly marry (and subsequently divorce) some beta schlubb who has manned up to give away a house, car and twenty years of income to support the children he rarely sees.

The problem is that most women have adopted the string, independent woman lie and actively resist a realistic appraisal of their options. This would normally occur in a patriarchy. But in the feminised matriarchy, women are encouraged to get a career first and forget about serious relationships because it is assumed that men will always be available later, when the women are good and done with saving the world. Putting thir ambitions first and foremost, of course.

Women often lie to each other about their SMV and will sabotage each other’s dating attempts. “Those colours look really great.” or “That short haircut looks really cute.” Or “He’s not that into you”. All shortcuts to cutting out the competition.

A patriarchy provides a logic-based, external appraisal of each woman’s strengths and weaknesses and more realistically assesses options. This would, for example, result in less women getting useless and expensive degress and instead being guided to consider a broader variety of joe averages as a marriage partner much sooner than currently happens, rather than laser-like pinings for the unattainable joe alpha.

Unfortunately for men, women and western civilisation, this is unlikely in the short and medium term. It is further buried under the current socially-imposed double standard. Women are encouraged to shoot for the stars, rack up debt for useless degrees, have sex with joe alpha to try get him to commit, and other pointless outcomes of self-centred hedonism. Church girls get the same message. Don’t settle. Don’t throw your life away. Get a career. Have a fallback plan.

However, men are encouraged to mange their expectations down. Be realistic. Man up. Settle.

Bizarre.

Leaders of a church i occasionally pop into are mystified at the lack of marriages from a largish group of young adults. Whilst I don’t know the group very well, i have suspicions they are infected by the same strain of hypergamy that is at all churches now. Sad.

To answer the question: yes. Women should lower (change) their expectations. Which they will not. And men should raise (inform) their expectations.

When you are talking about 40 and 50 year olds, it is ridiculous unless it is a game like that noxious invention “date night”. It used to be called going to the opera. the ball, the movies…. or doing fun things together.

As a 45 yo man with a serious GF.

I would say go to the Opera. The Opera is the red pill, and always was (well, less needed for men 100-300 years ago). It is blind to our own PC marxist prejudices. Take your honey to the Opera. And go by yourself, too. It’s the red pill par excellence.

SC,
“What these women may evolve/devolve into later on can cause some very real damage…”

This is true, but men are subject to the same process of evolving/devolving. No of us is mature at age 18. A young woman is not yet a grownup,and she still needs lots of guidance, of the kind that parents and peers no longer give. If you marry a very young woman, YOU can (and should) be the greatest influence in her life. There are no guarantees, but there never were, yet in times past when young women came of age under moral influences, they usually went on to behave much better. A 20 year old is much less likely than a 26 year old, to have been permanently poisoned by her exposure to the feminazi influence. I think Dalrock is right (even though at 24 I wondered if maybe I was still too young…) Younger women present less risk. The elephant under the rug here is the husband’s role. It takes a LOT of confidence and knowledge for a young man to reject his feminist upbringing, and be the moral leader a young woman needs. By the time many men figure it out, they have 18 year old daughters. And these days, most men never figure it out. You have to be quite a man to actually lead a woman in this world.

Excellent article ( as usual) however allow me to suggest a title change to ” Women should CHANGE their expectations of courtship “.

Anyone who thinks they can behave like a hedonist and then land a “exceptional” person is delusional, has higher expectations for others than for them self, and the consequences of their actions are predictable.

Discipline goes a long way. It is quite obvious in male or females and the more exceptional person one is – the more it is evident in all aspects of ones life. It all about self control through the Spirit.

Men that dont have money, looks, or education but are disciplined enough to be a real Disciple of Christ (these are the real men / Sons of God) are a rare find and worth their weight in gold in this age and the age to come. They are truthful, kind, fair, honest, smart as serpents while gentle as doves, virtuous, and high morals and want the same in a woman. While Christian women say they want this in a man- they don’t – it interferes with personal autonomy and “fun”.

Allow me to suggest that a disciplined Disciple of Christ is ultimate alpha status and red pill. If a Christian woman isn’t living “wire tight for Christ” then she won’t recognize when she see one since she is blindly “having fun” ( Discipleship Alphas are very disciplined, low key and modest unlike what is portrayed as a media Alpha).

Btw, there is a reason why the Apostle Paul said he who refrains from marriage does better and spares himself 🙂 1 Corinthians 7:38

It may not be *per se* the red pill, but many operas I have watched have been very, very red pill. Carmen may be the best example, but Tosca, Cosi Fan Tutte and others as well. The key is not having a blue pill view of women, and quite a few operas don’t have that view (although some certainly are blue pill specials).

Dalrock, I have a problem with referring to modern dating as “courtship”. They’re two completely different things. Hookup culture further distances modern dating and relationships from old fashioned courtship.

I don’t think you could argue that a young attractive girl would need to lower her dating expectations. Many guys line up paid dates for her way in the hopes that their Lexus and payroll will convince her to settle down. Many guys will try to overlap her career and theirs just to be around her, so that they can convince her to settle down. Meanwhile she can sample from among any of them.

Why would she lower her expectations? To fulfill the expectations of someone lower than her?

I think you have hit on it in this quote and your larger comment. Many women are looking to mix the excitement of hookup culture with the search for a husband. This makes no logical sense, but it is extremely tempting. I think they hear from their mothers, aunts and grandmothers about men formally asking them out on expensive/exciting dates seeking their hand in marriage, and see that as a sort of birthright. I’m not sure it even existed for the mothers and aunts, but these myths die hard. More likely the mothers and aunts are mixing their abuse of beta orbiters with their memory of hooking up with exciting alphas.

The reality is that the greater betas (the ones with options) won’t be falling all over themselves to expensively court women they don’t already have a fairly strong relationship with. The alphas (and greater betas not looking to marry) have figured out that courtship is for suckers, and have moved to only dating women they already have had sex with. These are rational responses to the changes women in general have made to chase alphas while trying to extend the courtship phase indefinitely. But there is a lot of confusion right now, plus a lot of intentional misconstruing of what is going on. I don’t doubt that 99% of young women who read this will laugh and dive right in to the hookup culture. So be it. I won’t waste much energy trying to figure out how to convince them. But there are parents who want to influence their own daughters, as well as some young women who may earnestly want to do something different than her peers for better results.

I think resetting expectations on how much they can expect men who are looking to marry to foot the searching cost is essential for those who are still serious about marriage. They can still look forward to courtship, but it won’t be with a series of dashing alphas (was it ever?). If they don’t damage their ability to pair bond with an attainable man they can look forward to a very enjoyable courtship phase with the man they go on to marry. But they shouldn’t expect men to always formally ask them out and put on the full show upfront. The men they meet in everyday life are the men they have to choose from. If they have a good sense of their own league, what they are looking for, and which men are actually the marrying kind they can then take a little more of the initiative to place themselves on his radar and lower his perceived risk of asking her out. I know this is as romantic as sensible shoes, but it is what it is.

Direct advice to women is useles (though admirable), they are reactive and cannot affect their responses to societal paradigms. The nature of the feminine is reflective it is an ‘image’ even the apostle admonishes adulterous women as simply being ‘silly’. Men control the nature of the sexual paradigm, too many cads and unrestrained sex and you get today’s sexual market place.

Look at aunt Sue, she’s one of the most game aware women on the planet and yet even she can’t override her hyperagamous leanings.

The reality is that the greater betas (the ones with options) won’t be falling all over themselves to expensively court women they don’t already have a fairly strong relationship with. The alphas (and greater betas not looking to marry) have figured out that courtship is for suckers, and have moved to only dating women they already have had sex with. These are rational responses to the changes women in general have made to chase alphas while trying to extend the courtship phase indefinitely. But there is a lot of confusion right now, plus a lot of intentional misconstruing of what is going on. I don’t doubt that 99% of young women who read this will laugh and dive right in to the hookup culture.

Look, I want to know a person and then move on, not just have a femme du jour. Yeah, I’m beta. If society has changed, it is not my problem. And if you are not prepared to commit or you are flakey — I’m too old, too cynical, and you won’t get a second date.

The game is no longer worth it. It is set up for losers and players. Of both genders.

(Oh, you can find me at Church or in the library or bookshop or attending concerts. Not in a bar. Don’t like ’em, never have).

“(Oh, you can find me at Church or in the library or bookshop or attending concerts. Not in a bar. Don’t like ‘em, never have).”
The problem is that the “nice girls” go to bars.
The “nice girls” … also get drunk. (This would be a church-goer, 5 boyfriends in 2 years, also helps out at old folks’ homes … and brutally practices relational aggression, and “polices the hierarchy” (in the words of Mr. Collard)).

Interesting concept. Yes, it’s certainly true that queen bees of a group will attempt to shut out a man who they have deemed is somehow a threat to their power in the social group, by shaming girls who would otherwise go with him.

The idea is basically that of Steve Moxon, an Englshman who wrote The Woman Racket. Many of his ideas resemble those of the America-dominated Manosphere. One of his big ideas is that society attempts to enforce a rigid hierarchy among men. F Scott Devlin makes some similar points. There is a sexual aristocracy among men, with some men having droite de seigneur, and others getting the discards. Presumably, women are desperate not to become discards.

The best men marry pretty virgins or beautiful sexbombs. The male failures marry fucked over discards.

Technology is helping men. I am an old coot, but I imagine some girls will come to regret some of their Facebook photos or whatever. “Oh, and here is a lovely shot of your future bride half-naked in a pile of vomit. Don’t worry, it was her vomit.”

Thanks Brendan: I agree with you that Carmen and Cosi, are very red pill, – as is Traviata. Others are anything but: Tristan, I Capuletti and Dutchman spring to mind. That many operatic heroines have the most gruesome deaths in Act V might be considered Misogynistic; and I must confess to rather enjoying those: they include Tosca, (what a devious bitch) – which you sight as a Red Pill example – throwing herself into the Tiber.

I am trying to think of an Opera where the Hero is expected to man-up and marry those sluts: Alfredo Germont would have but doesn’t, but otherwise I cannot immediately think of an example. Most Operatic Heros, unlike the men in the films Dalrock watches are still single. Usually sluts and poor women (Mimi, Manon and Louise, for example, come to bad ends). Men, as usual, fight each other to the end (Trovatore, Forza del Destino) whereas many men are cuckolded (Pagliacci). There are crazy women galore who should be ignored but aren’t (Renata in Fiery Angel, Carmen, – who you mentioned – , and the eponymous Turandot).

Because they subvert the current heresy that one can enforce equality.

——————————————————————————-
But is they the reason we choose our entertainment venue or down time pursuits?
I’m very curious about this opera tangent, is opera a shared MRA/Red Pill/Christian experience?
Is it useful that opera(s) may be red pill – ish? I’m genuinely curious.

I am not aware that Opera is specifically a Christian- almost the opposite I would say; given that its dull cousin Oratorio coexists with it – or even MRA thing.

Opera is a composite European Art Form dating from the beginning of the 17th Century, originating in the Ducal courts of Italy – which attempted [Gallileo’s dad was involved] – but entirely failed – to recreate the Greek drama by marrying words with music in dramatic form and in the process creating something entirely new. Frequently the quality of the music (rather than the libretto – not that an appaling libretto can be saved by great music – see Euryanthe of Weber with a barking text by Helmina von Chezy – a perfect example of a pedestaled woman [Chezy] getting it all spectacularily wrong) keeps the particular opera in the repertory. Most of the Repertoire Operas come from the 19th century which is not especially Red Pill (though there are exceptions some of which Brendan mentions). No, if anything, far too many Operas are far too sentimental towards females – and the music makes it more so – consider, how, Janacek’s music turns that coldest of women E.M. in the Makropoulos Case into someone one begins to empathlise with and root for – it’s just not there in Karel Capek’s play on which it is based – apparently. Or, how about CioCioSan in Butterfly who is really a prostitute who thinks that the Alpha Pinkerton is really going to return to her – he does but with a white american wife. Far too many sentimentalised women – say Margeurite in any of the operatic Fausts especially Gounod’s version: ‘Women lead me onwards and upwards’ which might as well have come from a Conscious-Men video or Futrelle, is, I recall, more or less how Goethe put it originally. Equally the need to produce good music for the lead Soprano has a tendency towards sentimentality – long flowing lines. How about this one for an MGTOW opera however: Britten’s Peter Grimes. ‘I’ll marry Ellen, I’ll marry Ellen’ [the 30 if not 40 something schoolteacher] he sings: oh no he won’t as he sets out to sea one more time – he is certainly not The Dutchman! – or for more MGTOW consider how Jocaanan in the Strauss’ Salome [libretto Wilde] deals with its eponymous title character; The Baptist rejecting every one of her salacious advances until humiliated by rejection she demands his execution. She Salome, comes to a sticky end [spoiler alert] between the shields of two roman soldiers, as do many others (as I mentioned above) such as Mascagni’s Iris who meets her end having been sent down a laundry shoot into a sewer [my favorite for bizarreness] to her death, or Fenella in Muette de Portici of Auber who jumps into the erupting mouth of Mount Vesuvius. Of course if you are really angry with women I recommend The Carmelites of Poulenc who has almost the entire [female] cast guillotined.

I agree. Wagner is not really red pill at all, but most of the Italian operas seem to have a much more realistic view of women than what we see portrayed in the popular culture, even though they are “over the top”, as it were, due to the genre.

Opus
My post was unclear, i was labeling the primary audience HERE, not stating that Opera is Christian….please note the correction because that is wildly off course.

My point, made less gently, or my question rather, is there any utility in what is likely a minority, even a small one, discussing the finer points of opera? Not one to suggest anything ever be off limits, I do ask innocently, what is the driver for said analysis? If hobby cum academic interest, okay, cool, I’m just trying to find relevance for the wider audience who may be like me, find opera tedious, and am willing to say it even risking being labeled a mouth breathing gap toothed Appalachian.
My usual disclaimer, maybe I’m the odd man out. I think genuine interest in anything is great for the genuinely interested. Like you guys.

Looks like marriage is not a good expectation for a man to have. Mybe more effort should be made in ways men can enjoy a life with out a wife and a false commitment. Maybe my eyes can see things I couldn’t before( ignorance is bliss) things just seem to be getting worse for beta men. There is a huge cultural doubling down on unfrettered hypergamy and the “alpha quest” All family law now crimminal law, pop culture the church everything is based on feral hypergamy.
gritartisan comment was dead on there is really no reason at any level for a women not to behave as they do. The amazing thing about all of it is society puts all of these unrealistic expectations in place with this endless quest to insulate women from any and all risk and consequemnces.

You are right about Wagner, but of course there are exceptions. Who could be more Red Pill than Alberich in Rheingold: ‘henceforth’ he sings, after being rejected and humiliated by the three Rhinemaidens ‘love be accursed’ as he steals their gold and uses the pretty gold to achieve world power; and the god Loge is pretty cynical in the same opera, who having crossed the world in search of a substitute gift for Fasolt and Fafner declares that nothing is more valuable to men than a woman’s beauty and love – that is until he came across the one man who had forsworn it – Alberich.

This comment and the earlier posts made me think of an early Dalrock post:

Old Rules or New? dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/old-rules-or-new/

Generally the post is about the morality of pickup, Game, casual sex et al. Go read it to put the quote below in full context.

The Oracle of Dallas said:

“In the end I don’t know the right answer to this [questions of moral authority] until/unless we as a society decide which set of rules we will live by. I think from a practical perspective the best we can hope for from individuals for now is consistency. Pick one, old rules or new. *** I think the bigger problem we have today are those who choose one set of rules when it suits them and then switch to the other when it is to their benefit. Even worse are the churches which give those living under the new rules or blended rules false moral comfort. At any rate, none of this bodes well for our society. As Haley puts it in a recent comment on her blog:

“No society can survive, much less thrive, when the family unit goes kaput.”

I think that we as a society have made our collective choice. For their part, women as a whole have made theirs. Worse, Christians have allowed the society surrounding them to make the choice for them. And the choice they made or acquiesced to is clear:

New rules.

So be it.

So let’s recap:

Old rules: Men readied themselves for marriage through education or work, earning enough to support a wife and family. Men selected women a little younger and married early. They enjoyed a slut or two, then settled down. Women’s sexuality was tightly controlled. Sluts were called out and identified publicly, and had sharply reduced marriage prospects. Women were under pressure to choose a man early and get married early — if they wanted marriage. Of course no one was forced into marriage.

Divorce was fault based only, tightly controlled, and favored men so as to provide for children. You could not get a divorce unless you proved one of the A’s – abuse (real, repeated physical threats of death or serious bodily harm), adultery, abandonment. If a man wanted to trade in his old model, he paid generous alimony. But if she ran off with Harley McBadboy, she left with her clothes and her jewelry and that was it, and the kids stayed with Dad. No alimony, no child support. Shame was the order of the day: If you didn’t follow these rules, you were to be ashamed and were a bit separated from society.

Out with the old, in with the new.

New Rules: Men and women are considered equal in every way. Women are completely unrestrained socially, professionally, educationally and sexually. Courtship and early marriage are a thing of the past. For men, marriage is to be avoided. All the incentives to marriage have been removed. Sex is easily obtained if one has some modicum of status. The top 15% or so of men get most of the female attention and sex. Young men who cannot get sex will have to bide their time until they are older and have more status, money, or security. Some will drop out and GTOW, living their lives and getting sex when they can. Some will learn Game and improve their lots. They will find easy prey in single women who are around age 30 on their way to their destinies with The Wall. Most will not improve, and will live in sexual desolation. A tiny few will sequester themselves in enclaves of like minded people and try to live by the old rules, until the inevitable happens and the world presses in on all sides, chipping away at their lives.

New rules require new strategies for “relationships” (such as they are) with women. In general, for all men, marriage is not advisable because the risks far outweigh the benefits. For alphas, it’s rotating, soft harems. Who is society to press a man to marry when that society won’t help him protect his investment? Married alphas will run dark triad and cheat and get away with it. For the rest, it’s catch as catch can. The strategies most will employ will include no dating until sex, keeping monetary and time investments to an absolute minimum, and pressing for sex as early as possible. Limiting investment is self-protection — don’t put out time or money until she has put out sex. Sexual pressure and her response to it is the way to measure the woman’s interest– if she’s interested, she’ll give it up early. If not, it is in his interest to dump her and move on. He has learned that There Will Always Be Another Woman. He has learned that even wives can be replaced with a string of girlfriends if he’s willing to do the work. Those who cannot or will not do this will either go into involuntary celibacy, or marry and hope for the best.

As for married men, the New Rules require married Game, mostly to do what they can to protect themselves against the ever-present threat of the divorce meat grinder and to shield any children from its destructive effects. As above, married alphas will do whatever they want, in and out of their marriages. For the rest, it will require overtly assuming the dominant role in the marriage, keeping frame, maintaining state control, smacking down rebellion, learning and passing her fitness tests, sparsely applied Dread when necessary, demanding and expecting frequent sex, assuming the dominant role in sex, and expecting and enforcing her compliance with the above.

What about women? Well, women (including Christian women) have been living by these rules for about 35 years now. And young women secretly love it. Young women between the ages of 17 and 26 can have sex whenever they want, with whomever they want. Any woman at a 4 or above in attractiveness can get sex if that’s what she wants. They are free to indulge their natural hypergamous instincts, holding out for the top men for sex and “dating” when they are younger. They use their looks and the “carrot” of sex to extract tribute in the form of drinks, meals, entertainment and gifts. They don’t want or need marriage or commitment because they earn their own money, taking jobs away from men who might otherwise be eligible and who might otherwise marry them.

“Dating” and “courtship” for these women will consist of meeting men at bars, at parties, or through mutual friends. She doesn’t like most of them because their betaness is immediately apparent, and dumps them after one “date” or hangout session. For the few she likes, it’s hanging out a time or three, watching rented movies or walking around a museum looking at the work of obscure artists (no admission charge), followed by sex on the second or third “hangout” session. Or if she really likes him and is tingling, she’ll go home with him and have sex with him, and hope that he likes her enough to hang out again sometime. Or if she doesn’t like him or was sufficiently shamed or embarrassed, she’ll delete his later texts and refuse to return his calls. After she has sex with him, she might get a meal at a nice restaurant once or twice, and maybe a weekend away. She consents to become his sex toy, and he takes her off the shelf and plays with her when he wants. He then puts her back on the shelf until he wants to play with her again. If she’s too much hassle, he disappears without a trace.

Then around age 28 the expectations of commitment and marriage come with increasing volume and shrillness. An increasing number of women never marry, instead consigning themselves to careers which they now must work at to support themselves. (The number of women in this category will explode in the coming years, if the economy holds up.) Many “work” at worthless, make work government or public sector jobs, or private companies in cubicle farm jobs, at which they are minimally competent at best. They remain in the jobs due to a vast panoply of legal and social protections. They never marry or have children. A few have bastards. A tiny few become lesbians.

If she’s lucky, marriage to beta ensues, followed by a child or two, then “I’m not haaaappy” and divorce (maybe an affair thrown in for good measure). Then it’s gravy train and post-divorce cougardom/spinsterhood for ex-wife and wage slavery and societal isolation for ex husband. In the best case, she stays married to beta, but remains miserably unhappy, making everyone else around her miserable as well.

Empathologicalism,
The utility I can see in opera is as a bit of shock and awe, resetting the frame. Nobody expects a ManlyMan to be interested in the fine arts, so an invitation to attend the opera would come as a surprise, from a man who usually attends rock concerts and ball games. Plus it can be used as an opener for statements like, “Great story. Too much drama, but I love the justice!” It’s rather extravagant, but it can be quite a Red Pill move, especially if he dresses appropriately and tells his woman what to wear.

That’s a good point about the Ring, although I still tend to think that the Italian operas (including Mozart, I guess, who did mostly Italian operas) have generally more realistic views about women than Wagner’s do. It’s interesting viewing, in any case, because of how jarringly different they are from how things are portrayed today. I suppose a good part of that has to do with the fact that they were written in a different age, but the fact that they are still being performed today in this culture makes them stand out in that respect all the more.

My point, made less gently, or my question rather, is there any utility in what is likely a minority, even a small one, discussing the finer points of opera?

I guess it just struck me that it was a particularly useful way to reemphasize the red pill and its truth, because these operas, although written quite some time ago, nevertheless are still a part of the present culture –> they’re giving a red pill message (in many cases, but certainly not all cases) in the present culture, which is quite rare.

“Dating” for men is not going to include immediate investment. First dates consisting of dinner at some nice place followed by a movie at the 16-Plex? Those days are over. Now, first dates will be hanging out at his apartment watching a movie that she brought — after she’s eaten. Or drinks at a local watering hole, with each buying their own drinks. She cannot expect him to pay for everything, because he probably won’t be able to afford it. Even if he can afford it, he won’t if he understands anything about Game.

She will need to be prepared for him to escalate sexually at any time. She will need to be prepared for most men to walk away if she won’t put out, or at least show very strong immediate sexual interest in him.

A bit grim, but pretty close to where I see things heading as well for quite a few people. The main difference in my perspective is that I fully expect that quite a few clueless betas will continue to feed the system which has been set up as husband fodder around 30. I think we’ll see a split between the people who know and use some Game, on the one hand, and the others (who I think will still be a majority for quite some time) who are getting sucked into the system in a clueless way.

I am not American. I am actually Eeast European and have been reading this so called manosphere blogs for some time. I actually quite enjoy Roisy, others not so much. Although I can uderstand most of your issues and simphatize to some extent with you I can not help but to feel completely disgusted with what you American guys have turned yourselves into. It makes me puke, how did you let your country go so far away to ashitthole it now is? It is utterly beyond me. I come from one of the most machistic places and really can not see what you describe happening here.
Recently I had few drinks with couple of USA acquaintaces from company I work for and when we started to joke that when in doubt we usually hire the girl with biggest tits these guys completely froze out of fear!! This kind of jokes are regular here and even in female company it seems that they can be sued for this kind of shit there ( Chicago). I am stil having hard time to wrapp my head around your problems.

One suggestion thoug, you better start planning revolution otherwise you are completetly FUCKED.

As for mysefl I was raised to be quite sexist and after I have been involved in your blogs for some time I am pushing myself to be that way even more and pushing my friends also.

This fucking feminist disaster has to be shut down mercilessly even before it starts.

I am not sufficiently versed in the movies, especially modern ones to know whether Hollywood is entirely devoid of red pill, but when I was, like De Tocqueville a temporary sojourner in your country, one of the things that struck me – being very different from what I was used to – was the way people would discuss the latest film (films now doubtless long-forgotten) as if they were discussing Shakespeare; or better, some newsworthy moment in life of great cultural significance. I mean, they were taking very seriously what seemed to me to be probably ephemeral. That is of course the culture Americans live in – and I am not criticising them for that – thus D writes of movies like Courageous and Firpeoof as if they have some cultural significance. Perhaps they do. Yet America is a vast country with many different peoples – many of whom are far more likely to be familiar with Traviata and Trovatore, than with movies let alone that sub-strand of films – not even quite mainstream Hollywood – known as Christian Movies. Neither am I sufficiently familiar with home-grown American Opera to judge whether it is blue or red pill. If it is Blue pill, than it may have something to do with your democracy which De Tocqueville predicted (correctly) would lead to weak men and strong women.

Good thing though is that you are setting fine example for the rest of the world of mistakes wich should not be done. You are spreading the word in places you would really doubt that people red what you write ( but they do) beyond anglosphere.

I mean, they were taking very seriously what seemed to me to be probably ephemeral. That is of course the culture Americans live in – and I am not criticising them for that – thus D writes of movies like Courageous and Firpeoof as if they have some cultural significance. Perhaps they do. Yet America is a vast country with many different peoples – many of whom are far more likely to be familiar with Traviata and Trovatore, than with movies let alone that sub-strand of films – not even quite mainstream Hollywood – known as Christian Movies. Neither am I sufficiently familiar with home-grown American Opera to judge whether it is blue or red pill. If it is Blue pill, than it may have something to do with your democracy which De Tocqueville predicted (correctly) would lead to weak men and strong women.

In America it’s a social class issue. Movies have much more impact on the average person here than Shakespeare or Verdi. So a film like Fireproof, for example, has a significant if not substantial influence on a certain subsegment of American culture — evangelical Christians. Same for Courageous. More impact on that subsection of the culture than Shakespeare or Verdi. Among the more highbrow cultural set, however, films like that are much less likely to be viewed — art films might have some impact, but are mostly not red pill. However, the highbrows are more likely to be taking in Carmen or La Traviata than the middle or low brows are in the US — just how the culture is here. In European countries Opera is more mainstream (I think every little city in Germany seems to have an opera house, for example) than it is in the US, where it’s reserved for the explicitly highbrow set. Still among that set it could have some use as a red pill transmitter, at least with respect to certain operas.

Great article as always, D. I had a friend who didn’t date at all in college after was publicly nuked by a girl in her freshman year. She even went as far as to write on her MySpace page about the “creepy” guy who stalked her.

He was a nice kid. I was there. He simply said hi and asked her to go to a concert that weekend.

I just wanted to add something and in support of your view as to Italian Operas and particularily in your linking Mozart to that; for his Italian Operas – I mean Figaro, Giovanni and Cosi have libretti by Lorenzo da Ponte, an Italian and latterly Amercian Citizen (!) and First Professor of Italian at Columbia University. It is perhaps worth noting that before the 1950s no one- and that included Blue Pill Wagner – would listen to Cosi (which is such a red pill opera, quite literally its title translates as AWALT) indeed it had never even been performed at London’s Covent Garden until 1968 for it was considered immoral to present high-class women as fickle sluts who when their boyfriends returned promptly dropped their new lovers. Maybe Christians should see more Opera (but not much Wagner).

First of all, can I say as a woman I love reading this blog and reading the comments from various men. And I also love the candid way you all speak about the dynamics with women these days, what you really desire and I love the real spirituality found here. I like that the angle is real and not this strange brand of “Christian-ese” which seems to be the main option offered to those of us who want to follow god here in America.

Sometimes I’m a bit concerned with generalizations that I read, but then I understand that sometimes that is the nature of conversations and that we also tend to communicate our frustrations according to our own experiences. I’m glad there are guys like you out there who are sick of the way things are. Believe me, if you all were on a dating site, I’d be on that site.

My experience as a woman is that I’m also frustrated with the way things are. There are all kinds of people in the world. You have to have faith that if you exist, there could be a woman out there that is like you, that sees things the way you do. At least, that is what I try to remind myself, cause I don’t find men with the opinions expressed here. I am also living in NYC, and the dating scene is crazy. I’ve had guys get really upset with me, feel so entitled to me and don’t want to see me again cause I didn’t jump them and want to get in bed with them on the 1st or 2nd date. A lot of guys here seem to expect me to initiate and be sexual right away. And it’s not just 1st or 2nd date, I can’t wrap my head around the difference between that and getting it on on the 65th date. Commitment is the only place I see it happening joyfully and freely. I feel shamed for my femininity at times.

I’m 32, and I don’t believe I fit the description and generalization posted in this comment

“A highly attractive young woman (9 or higher) who fails to use her prime years to land the best possible husband….

…… Is about the same thing as a young man who inherits $10M and squanders it.”

I do get sad sometimes, I wonder is this the way I’m considered? That I’m past some sort of “prime” and I’ve failed? But then I’m reminded that god doesn’t work they way our culture dictates. I have kept myself pure. Been told I’m really hot and people are confused why I’m not sleeping around. Or they worry I’m asexual cause I didn’t jump in bed with them, therefore they think we’re not going to be compatible (this is not love, but fear). Ha. There is a lot brimming under the surface, I’m not this square they worry I’ll be. But my desire has always been to give it all to my husband. I have not squandered away years just cause I haven’t found anyone who wants this too. It’s hard to find this.

Again, there are all kinds of people in this world. I find for me it is better to joyfully hope that it’s out there rather than focus on stuff I don’t like. For example, I used to read a lot of PUA forums and get so angry cause I would recognize how guys were playing me and wanting something from me. I realized, I need to get my head back into books that add to the wisdom I wish to cultivate and the path I want to be on. It puts me in a better place where I’m more receptive to the guys I really want.

Van Rooineck’s warning seems pretty reasonable. Any girl that’s rolls out a “nuclear rejection” is clearly disrespectful, gets marked with a red flag as a drama queen, then guys go out and meet a whole bunch of other sexy women. She gets some time to identify just what exactly is messed up about her, then gets to grow as a human being before attracting another guy into her life. Fair deal!

Yes it is like that in Germany so I hear. It is not entirely different here either – the provinical conurbation in which I live (pop 100,000) has one jewel of an opera house and two other theatres. There is a fair amount of straight theatre, largely Shakespeare. In the summer, you will get up to eight of London’s west-end theatres presenting plays by the bard simultaneously. The kids go to the movies, but I do not think popular though they are that adults take much notice of them unless it is something like ‘The King’s Speech’. Religion here is weak at best but the language is suffused with the King James Bible and Shakespeare.

First of all, can I say as a woman I love reading this blog and reading the comments from various men. And I also love the candid way you all speak about the dynamics with women these days, what you really desire and I love the real spirituality found here. I like that the angle is real and not this strange brand of “Christian-ese” which seems to be the main option offered to those of us who want to follow god here in America.

Thank you, and welcome.

My experience as a woman is that I’m also frustrated with the way things are. There are all kinds of people in the world. You have to have faith that if you exist, there could be a woman out there that is like you, that sees things the way you do. At least, that is what I try to remind myself, cause I don’t find men with the opinions expressed here. I am also living in NYC, and the dating scene is crazy. I’ve had guys get really upset with me, feel so entitled to me and don’t want to see me again cause I didn’t jump them and want to get in bed with them on the 1st or 2nd date. A lot of guys here seem to expect me to initiate and be sexual right away. And it’s not just 1st or 2nd date, I can’t wrap my head around the difference between that and getting it on on the 65th date. Commitment is the only place I see it happening joyfully and freely. I feel shamed for my femininity at times.

The current arrangement is definitely working against women who want to remain chaste until marriage. Part of the problem is the false signals often overwhelming the real information, and part of it is due to the way men have responded. I mentioned the problem of women mixing the excitement of the hookup culture with their search for a husband (at least in their mind). There are many men who without really thinking it through are doing something very similar. They are mixing their search for sex and a LTR with their search for a wife. Both strategies are what the culture suggests we do, and both are poorly suited to the task at hand. What I (as someone who doesn’t know either you or the SMP you are in) think is your biggest challenge is to accurately identify your real options. The men who are pushing you for sex aren’t men who should be in your marriage candidate pool. They will range from men who purely want sex, to men who are using the problematic blended strategy I mentioned above. The problem is the bulk of the men you encounter will fit this description. The men who were attractive candidates for marriage and looking to settle down have mostly done so, leaving the ones who are either unattractive or not really interested in marriage. There is the persistent hope that the players will one day outgrow the lifestyle, and there are always the exceptions keeping rationalization hamsters sprinting a marathon. What I would suggest is that you consider the bulk of the male attention you receive as smoke, something which prevents you from accurately assessing your real options.

One of my main points in the post is your real options (given your sadly fairly uncommon goal) are not the men who are paying the most attention to you. Men who know how to smoothly open a woman, generate attraction, and are looking to marry have in all likelihood already married. Even those who are close to your age who are deciding to settle down may be looking at women in their 20s for marriage. The challenge as I see it for a woman in her 30s isn’t just declining fertility and looks and (almost always but not in your case) chastity, but also that her pool of attractive options is rapidly dwindling. A woman of 20 may find herself attracted to an up and coming man in his mid 20s who is interested in marriage. This is a sweet spot for finding husbands because such men are mature enough that you can get a strong sense of their potential, but most women aren’t yet focused on them. They tend to be as a result much more motivated to marry. The men who make it through what Solomon II and Date Me DC call “the marriage zone” unmarried tend to suddenly find dating fun the way their female counterparts did a decade ago. After a long painful spell of little or no female attention, the attractive ones (which is who you want) suddenly feel like rock stars. The problem is, at 30 you aren’t as likely to find the mid 20s men of promise attractive. Your pool of marriage minded men who are older than you is shrinking each year unless you are willing to go significantly older than yourself. Even then the basic demographics are against you, and this is before taking into account the sorting which occurs (men who wanted to marry tend to have already done so).

This is I think the logic behind the much more harsh sentiment I think you have already seen from many men in this sphere. From a man’s perspective it seems so obvious, and the call goes out to hurry up and settle. My take is that you shouldn’t settle though. You have no obligation to marry, but you have an obligation to keep your vows if you make them. But I do believe that the sooner women looking to marry can sort out their real marriage prospects the better, because those prospects tend to dwindle over time for the reasons I described.

I’m 32, and I don’t believe I fit the description and generalization posted in this comment
“A highly attractive young woman (9 or higher) who fails to use her prime years to land the best possible husband….
…… Is about the same thing as a young man who inherits $10M and squanders it.”
I do get sad sometimes, I wonder is this the way I’m considered? That I’m past some sort of “prime” and I’ve failed? But then I’m reminded that god doesn’t work they way our culture dictates. I have kept myself pure. Been told I’m really hot and people are confused why I’m not sleeping around. Or they worry I’m asexual cause I didn’t jump in bed with them, therefore they think we’re not going to be compatible (this is not love, but fear). Ha. There is a lot brimming under the surface, I’m not this square they worry I’ll be. But my desire has always been to give it all to my husband. I have not squandered away years just cause I haven’t found anyone who wants this too. It’s hard to find this.

You are getting a number of mixed messages of varying utility. What I would say is the men who have indicated an interest in marrying you in the last year or two are your true pool of prospects. Don’t think of how hot you are or the amount of attention you get on the street, at the bar, or at an online dating site. I can only imagine that this is extremely difficult advice to follow, but it has a valid purpose. Once you consider this, you know your real options. Of these not marrying may be your best option.

Your other option is to figure out how to change the pool of prospects. Assuming the last 15 years have been an anomaly, you might find that in the next 5 years better options appear simply due to time and random chance. But logically it doesn’t strike me as likely. The best option is to find a way to move the odds better in your favor to have a higher volume of men expressing an interest in marriage as well as raise the overall quality of your choices at the same time. This would allow you to either choose the best or understand that you aren’t interested in the choices the dysfunctional hookup culture has left you as your options. How to do this is not something I can offer detailed advice on, but anything to make you more attractive to marriage minded men and put you in their proximity more often is what I would focus on. It might be that you need to leave the NYC area, for example. You likely will also find that you have to do more than a tradition minded woman would expect to encourage such men to pursue you. I don’t mean offer sex, but lower their risk of initiating courtship (without sending the wrong signal). It may be that there are a number of men around you now who would be interested in you for marriage who haven’t understood that you would be interested in them.

I hope you don’t mind the blunt unrequested advice from a stranger on the internet. Feel free of course to follow or ignore as much of it as you see fit. I wish you the best as you navigate difficult times for a traditional woman.

as unfortunate as it is i tried that approach courtship, but later found out the girl i was couting who didnt sleep with me for two months, had a string of one night stands and random hook-ups while travelling, what transpires is, i was being sized up as husband potential, ” now it was time to settle down”. You can’t have your cake and eat it, its just that simple. A subjective opinion of a man who has decidede AWALT and GTOW is the best option.

This thread, and the one over at CMDN, is giving me a big “A-ha” moment. When I was a churchgoing lad, I remember there was a great deal of effort put into training girls that if they were Christian a hunky God-believer was going to come sweep them off their feet. This was emphasized in my childhood church. In fact, the pastor’s wife told her teenage daughter that she had a “dream” that the daughter would end up marrying one of the men from “DC Talk” (christian pop group) if she continued to do as she was told.

If Christian teenage girls are being indoctrinated into believing they are entitled to hunky God-believing men, then the average joeys that she encounters every day at church aren’t ever going to pass muster. I don’t know if this is a common phenomenon, but if so it’s no surprise that Christian girls have no interest in settling for the males in the church.

BehindSilentWalls
Huge tip…..figure out what generalizations actually are, and get comfortable with the fact that there is not one thing wrong with them. Your comment that you dislike some of the generalizations here would be a big red flag for many men, because it suggests someone who will not think very deeply about the opinion they are expressing, BUT, who in their rejection of a generalization (for example) feels they actually are being clever.

This is not a trivial matter. Unless and until you can process generalizations, you cannot see the world as it is, rather you will blind yourself to some things because they dont make you feel as you may want to.

If I have 10 balls and 6 are red and 4 are blue, I can say “those balls are generally red”. That’s all that a generalization means, that more than half, or the majority are what they say. I know its de rigueur to deny gender differences, but fact is, they are valid generalizations. It doesn’t matter that your sister or friend isn’t like some trait, what matters is that MOST (not all….MOST) hold that trait. I know I seem to be beating this issue, but it is absolutely crucial you get past the reflexive dismissal of generalities, OR, be prepared to express, empirically, why a given generality is not valid. But too many women say they simply dont like generalizations, like its some popular thing these days to reject them, especially gender ones because no one wants to be female anymore…everyone wants to be men, in group discussions, one on one though women take the exact opposite approach wanting men to be woman. But as traits go, Id bet you say we are all unique like snowflakes and no one is fitting any generalities. Nonsense. Entire sciences are based on them, medicine, sociology, psychology, counseling, etc etc.

Anyway, just my tip , I guess men in NYC are also afraid of generalities too because they would never find a wo man to date them

If I have 10 balls and 6 are red and 4 are blue, I can say “those balls are generally red”. That’s all that a generalization means, that more than half, or the majority are what they say. I know its de rigueur to deny gender differences, but fact is, they are valid generalizations. It doesn’t matter that your sister or friend isn’t like some trait, what matters is that MOST (not all….MOST) hold that trait.

In general, silent rules, in your mid 30s you either are dealing with players (who will not bond), competing with women 10 years younder for you for peers, or looking 12 -15 years older than you for a man who has recovered from the marital nuclear rejection.

You said ” Your comment that you dislike some of the generalizations here would be a big red flag for many men, because it suggests someone who will not think very deeply about the opinion they are expressing, BUT, who in their rejection of a generalization (for example) feels they actually are being clever.”

I don’t think you took the time to read my comment, nor to hear the sensitive tone with which I typed it. Nor did you see that I agree with the views most of the guys express here. I’m not trying to be clever as you say, I’m on a journey to understand things better.

This is what I said:

“Sometimes I’m a bit concerned with generalizations that I read, but then I understand that sometimes that is the nature of conversations and that we also tend to communicate our frustrations according to our own experiences. I’m glad there are guys like you out there who are sick of the way things are.”

And you said “But too many women say they simply dont like generalizations, like its some popular thing these days to reject them, especially gender ones because no one wants to be female anymore…everyone wants to be men,”

Hmm..I just said (if you read above) that that is the nature of conversations. And yes, what you went on to say, it’s the way we learn about things, be generalizing. It’s only personal to my own story that sometimes I get worried that I will be roped into some generalization being that I’m in my early thirties and single. I worry that people may think it’s cause I’m part of this feminist crap (which I hate) and that I don’t want men to be men. I’m just being a female here and discussing my feelings candidly.

What’s weird and unique about me is I was raised here in the US by my family who is arab. To come from abuse and arab culture and be in this feminist culture and live in career-hungry NYC makes for a lot of other reasons why I’m single. I’m scared, I’m pure (and shamed for it) and in my early thirties. Doesn’t fit much of the norm. I’m just as lost and searching as some men are who also hate this feminist and hookup crap.

Thanks for your lengthy reply! I really appreciate it. There is a lot of good stuff in there. I feel silly/arrogant for saying “people have said I’m hot”. This is not what I value, just trying to have a conversation over the internet and people can’t see each other. In the past when I’ve had conversations like this on the internet, people have wondered if I’m some homely nerdy librarian who is single and living with cats and that’s why I’m not married. 🙂 But yes, I do see the need for sending encouragement and the right signals to other guys. And for being in the right places for that, not approaching marriage in the hookup way. I don’t consider guys who just want me for sex as candidates and never will.

And I completely agree with what you said, this is spot on:

“I mentioned the problem of women mixing the excitement of the hookup culture with their search for a husband (at least in their mind). There are many men who without really thinking it through are doing something very similar. They are mixing their search for sex and a LTR with their search for a wife. Both strategies are what the culture suggests we do, and both are poorly suited to the task at hand.”

puke: Yeah, for some reason those women do not understand that neither the 35-40 YO players nor the 45-50 YO divorcees will marry them, support them and give them kids. But being wrong with the players maybe is more fun than being wrong with the divorcees.

@Brendan and @Opus
Now I’m afraid that feminists will set their sight on Operas as “Misogynists vehicles of the patriarchy” and demand Operas with strong female characters and reinterpret them as “liberated” instead of sluts. It wouldn’t be the first time …*lesigh* 😦

marko, yes. From an outside point of view (I am Australian, so in a slightly more masculine country), America is so feminist because of a long tradition of feminist and progressivist thought which some have traced back to Puritanism, combined with rampant individualism. Another factor is that American politicians are in an arms race to pander harder and harder to women voters.

I can’t help but think about the lottery. Women (in many cases) think about sport fucking some alpha guy and hoping that they get him to commit. OK. Nothing new here. So we talk about some girl delivering a nuclear rejection. All she is doing is hoping to hit the lottery.

But the odds are long and she ends up waiting around dreaming. Just like a lot of us filling our gas tank at the gas station and going in to buy a ticket for the 100 million dollar jackpot.

The hope is there. But lightening will strike before it happens.

BTW, this doesn’t go way in older women. Some of the worst women I have met are divorced women in their forties who think their ship is ready to dock just because they think it should be so. You know the drill. “If you dream it then it will come true!”

From an outside point of view (I am Australian, so in a slightly more masculine country), America is so feminist because of a long tradition of feminist and progressivist thought which some have traced back to Puritanism, combined with rampant individualism. Another factor is that American politicians are in an arms race to pander harder and harder to women voters.

While there is probably something to this, I suspect much of the perceived difference between the US and other western nations isn’t that the US is really that much different. At one point most of my readers were convinced the US wasn’t that bad at all. I’ve been smashing away at the denial in front of me, that which is local.

I see a similar pattern when we talk about marriage rates. Popular perception in the manosphere was that marriage rates had broken down in the US. I was stunned to find that 90% of white women in my age bracket had married (although many subsequently divorced). When I shared the census stats there were some who suspected I was undertaking some sort of a devious cover-up. Something clearly is going on with today’s 20 something and early 30s women, but this hasn’t fully played out yet. I’ve read similar claims that marriage rates have broken down in the UK. When I looked at UK data it didn’t look that different than white women in the US. Maybe I should do a post on it.

Same thing for denial about the church. When I started the consensus was those other churches had real problems, but the church most of my readers attended were just fine. Likewise maybe Fireproof was bad, but Courageous was another thing altogether.

How much of the perceived difference is due to real differences, vs me hammering away at what is in front of me and not what is going on in Australia, Europe, etc?

I am afraid it has already happened. Various female producers do just that. Take the opening of Giovanni: The Don leaves Anna’s house followed by Anna (who must be in her early thirties), claiming that she has been raped. Apart from her word we have absolutely no evidence that this is the case, and given that the Don has a track record for scoring with women that would be the envy of any Alpha it would be highly unlikely. Anna herself as I said above has an Omega boyfriend – who has never had sex with her, clearly [as you can tell when he sings dalla sua pace] – and who following Anna’s father’s death wants to be her ‘father and lover’. He has been friend-zoned but her father seems to be closer. Hmmmm. One much praised English female producer therefore used the Overture to depict this brutal rape – and thus makes clear what Da Ponte left ambiguous. Very dramatic but we just don’t know, but it looks like a false rape allegation to me. More recently at London’s Coliseum (my local) the Don is presented the way one might expect to see a tramp portrayed with ill-fitting clothes and straggly hair, yet he is clearly an uber-Alpha as we see in scene 2 when he is pursued by one of his unhappy cast-offs, who is greatly shocked when his servant reveals the extent of his conquests – yet another female production effort. I was not averse to telling them on their facebook page exactly what I thought of this travesty. Usually my disparaging comments are then cancelled!

We have our feminists and our progressives, but Australia remains, as past Prime Minister John Howard put it, “tolerant but conservative”. The ideology of male headship seems a bit stronger here; we have shared custody after divorce I understand (I am not a lawyer); and affirmative action is pretty weak. Our female politicians are perceived as failures, and the current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard is deeply unpopular and seen as comically inept.

A lot of our social movements are clearly based on American models, but they don’t seem to have the same effect here.

@Opus
Sad to know.
Is there any masculine endeavors that feminists haven’t touched yet? I had a coworker telling me that his wife was on a women’s only outdoors experience (fishing, camping and all that) and he told he that it was women only as a way to stimulate women to learn to do this things. I often receive propaganda for women’s only gyms with the “non-threatening” environment as a way to make it all PC. Can you imagine a men only…anything that is not considered exclusive and sexist?
PS
Had any of you read a piece of printed garbage called The gift of fear? Is a favorite book on Jezebel and I will dare to say that is the cause of a lot of the paranoia since is written as a “empowering book” that teaches women that their “instincts” about men being a threat are always right. Dalrock should get it from a library, like I did and do a review. Utter piece of BS that appeals to women’s feelings and make men look like the villain regardless of facts.

queenanacaona says:Had any of you read a piece of printed garbage called The gift of fear? Is a favorite book on Jezebel and I will dare to say that is the cause of a lot of the paranoia since is written as a “empowering book” that teaches women that their “instincts” about men being a threat are always right. Dalrock should get it from a library, like I did and do a review. Utter piece of BS that appeals to women’s feelings and make men look like the villain regardless of facts.

Disclaimer: It has been over 5 years since I read “Gift of Fear”, so my memory of it is
foggy.

I have that book, bought it on the recommendation of a self-defense instructor, although with a bunch of caveats. Gavin de Becker has some interesting things to say about what I would call the “active subconscious” and its ability to detect subtle patterns. He has some very interesting text describing how confidence men and worse social predators work to get “inside” a targeted person’s comfort zone. There are some very useful ideas, including some discussion of “back of the head’ intuition vs. rationalization – victims of cons and other crimes often rationalize their way into trouble even as their subconscious is screaming “Get out of here, now!”.

However, when reading it one must bear in mind that the author is a man with some severe emotional damage in his past that IMO he had clearly not resolved at the time of writing the book. Maybe he’ll never get over it, it was that bad. It should be no surprise that de Becker is very strongly opposed to the private ownership of firearms.

The utility of the book is spotty in my opinion. About half of the book is of little to no use (I do not care that there are stalkers in the Hollywood hills spying on movie talent and I really do not need detailed descriptions of them.) There are some very broad, sweeping generalizations in it that are unsupported (and unsupportable IMO). I am not surprised a feminist site would support it. Perhaps someone else someday will write a better book on the same theme.

There’s no way I could muster the effort to quash a hamster like that. The response I had in my head when I read behindsilentwalls’ response was something like “You spent your twenties riding the carousel (whether it be the ‘wishing carousel’ or the actual one with real live cocks). You rejected guys at your MMV level. (Anticipating rebuttal here.) Oh yes you did! You just don’t think so because those guys were invisible to you. Now you’ve hit the wall. If you start dating divorced guys in their mid forties you might find a taker. Otherwise, enjoy your cats.”

Please erase both of my failed comments, Dalrock TAKE TWO!He has some very interesting text describing how confidence men and worse social predators work to get “inside” a targeted person’s comfort zone.

True but you might not remember the airplane guy example that was obviously running game to get laid (textbook Roissy lines) he warned the girl that the guy had “violent” intentions against her. So he predisposes the women (and I really think the book is written to appeal to women) to assume that “when in doubt men want to hurt you”, when in reality “when in doubt men want to bang you” is probably 99% more accurate.

However, when reading it one must bear in mind that the author is a man with some severe emotional damage in his past that IMO he had clearly not resolved at the time of writing the book. Maybe he’ll never get over it, it was that bad.

ITA

The utility of the book is spotty in my opinion. About half of the book is of little to no use (I do not care that there are stalkers in the Hollywood hills spying on movie talent and I really do not need detailed descriptions of them.) There are some very broad, sweeping generalizations in it that are unsupported (and unsupportable IMO). I am not surprised a feminist site would support it. Perhaps someone else someday will write a better book on the same theme.

I will say that the book is not that useful in a safe modern environment like a big city as it was on his own personal violent hell or in very specific cases. There is a lot of encounters that might look like being trouble that are just innocent. I also don’t trust it for the lack of actual data, his obvious origin to his conclusions, perception not science, and even though I agree that if you feel really fear you should remove yourself from the situation I’m sure the average woman can feel threatened 1001 times a day specially when there is this level of misandry in the culture without being anything but paranoia.
Another thing that I found “interesting” was that he describes the big case of the Hollywood actress he saved her life but couldn’t mention to protect her but is a good friend and then in acknowledgments he names a famous Hollywood actress as a personal friend…how stupid can someone be? Or clever in case it was part of the marketing and maybe he does want women to feel even more threatened so he can have his agency growing, dunno the man might be a genius but I don’t think he is making things easier for the average man or woman, YMMV.

I am afraid it has already happened. Various female producers do just that.

RIght, which is done in some productions of Carmen as well. Try to make Carmen into a normal woman who is the victim of a stalker, instead of the incorrigible seductress who teased one cock too many, as it was written (without, mind you, Don Jose’s actions being excused). Carmen is almost perfect in that it assigns blame all around: Don Jose for being an obsessed maniac with one-itis (Game), Carmen for being a total cock-tease who is offended by her lover’s obligations (to go to work), but then leaves him anyway for an obvious upgrade to the Alpha matador. It’s a story about male and female foibles alike, but I can imagine a feminist production making it into about how a normal, sexually liberated woman is oppressed by a stalker and prevented from her rightful alpha-sperm destiny.

Yes, as the female ballroom dancing teacher said last week, “there has to be a boss”.

A few days ago my older boy (about 3 y.o.) was fussing about something and I told him “you have to listen to me.” He pauses, and asks “why?” I told him: “because if you don’t listen to me, you will listen to bad people out there; and at least you can trust me. You can’t trust them.”

Hi, what sort of rebuttal are you expecting from me? I can’t even respond to what you said, I’m clearly not allowed to. Anything I say in response is gonna seem defensive to you or argumentative as you plainly said that’s what you were anticipating. You haven’t even invited me into a conversation. Whatever I say is gonna fit the mold of something you have in mind already and you don’t know me. You have spelled out that anything I say will be ridiculous and that I’m actually worthless for being single in my 30’s.

“Quash a hamster?” I needed to be quashed based on my post? I’m just joining what I thought was an interesting and insightful conversation. I’m sorry I brought my story here, even though you are discussing single women. I was simply bringing my thoughts to the table. I thought I was welcome to…I actually think the guys on here are super smart and see what’s wrong with our culture. I appreciated that, but I understand you want to discuss with each other and don’t want a person who has “hit the wall” to comment or give what you call a rebuttal (what I actually truly wanted to be a conversation). I really honestly had the desire to learn here.

What I will say is, I don’t have cats. 🙂

In reply to @greenlander:
“Wow, I’m pretty impressed by your depth of your response and the magnitude of your diplomacy, Dalrock.

There’s no way I could muster the effort to quash a hamster like that. The response I had in my head when I read behindsilentwalls’ response was something like “You spent your twenties riding the carousel (whether it be the ‘wishing carousel’ or the actual one with real live cocks). You rejected guys at your MMV level. (Anticipating rebuttal here.) Oh yes you did! You just don’t think so because those guys were invisible to you. Now you’ve hit the wall. If you start dating divorced guys in their mid forties you might find a taker. Otherwise, enjoy your cats.””

Australian divorce practices are every bit as vicious and devastating to men as elsewhere. The civilised divorce is a myth. Amongst the middle and working classes, the husband usually moves out and the wife gets the house, with or without mortgage.

The lower and working classes often take out a domestic violence order to begin proceedings. The middle class presumably does not because it believes itself to be civilised. Bah, humbug.

True shared custody is rare. A typical arrangement involves the walking wallet getting the kids every second weekend, with telephone or visiting rights odd weeks. So he just also must rent a place big enough and make provision for them to stay. He must pay child support and his pay can be garnished. Many men are pushed into poverty and fall behind, working cash in hand iust to survive.

I also see a lot of middleaged men working extra shifts, taking jobs overseas and counting the years until their kids finish school. Many will also have their super payouts divided as the ex often gets awarded part of it.

Many of these men were good, (beta) husbands and fathers who got dumped for no valid reasons. They are villified as deadbeat dads, treated with suspicion around children and many avoid professions like teaching,thanks to our ‘civilised’ nation of misandrists.

I have seen this all first hand and am disgusted and saddened that my gender is so deeply reviled and distrusted. Thanks for nothing, feminism.

greenlander
I was thinking the same thing, The lady has been doing the 80 for 20 thing and that 20 she can see are the PUA and players. 10 years from now she’s done. She is a victim of feminist Idiology. As an MRA type I’m still trying to put together a way to do this on purpose as a way to get the laws of misandry removed. (involutary childless spinsterhood) What we have here is voluntary unintentional childless spinsterhood by delusion of entitlement. Emotionally painful but nothing like a married beta getting to know family laws of misandry.

I was a good-looking young man, so I didn’t get too many nuclear rejections. But I got the odd bit of contempt. So, I have an inkling of what it must be like for many men. One thing a lot of women don’t get is that payback is always a possibility. You can’t say nasty things to individual men, even your husband, or about men in general, and not expect some eventual blowback. It reminds me of those smart retorts wives are always giving their husbands in sitcoms and so on. Resentment does build up.

Women are sowing some very bad weeds, and the reaping may be ugly. Don’t they realise that crowing about how badly men are doing is not a good strategy in the long run? What goes around comes around. In the final analysis, women depend on the forebearance of men. I suspect this is becoming a scarcer commodity.

Whatever I say is gonna fit the mold of something you have in mind already and you don’t know me. You have spelled out that anything I say will be ridiculous and that I’m actually worthless for being single in my 30′s.

Oh trust me, I know your type. I’ve dated and seduced plenty of early thirtysomething chicks. The more I dated you chicks, the more I realized that you are all the same. You’ve finally decided that you should mature out of your infantile fascination with bad boys and players and settle for a higher beta. So, you meet a guy like me who has his act together, making some real money in middle management, driving a Porsche, wearing made-to-measure clothes and with far more confidence than I had when you rejected me in high school. I still have some little quirks, but with your new refined taste in men you find it a little bit charming. When you hang out with me the first couple of times you are thinking, “I could see a future with this guy. He’s OK for a beta.”

Of course, that’s totally different from what I’m thinking. What I’m thinking is “I’m going to bend this dumb feminist career chick over my kitchen table, pound her like there’s no tomorrow and then delete her from my cell phone. Just like the last early thirtysomething chick.” The thought of that is just enough to put a mildly wicked smile on my face, which just makes me more attractive to you. You thirtysomething girls are just so easy to reel in: in many ways you’re much easier than your twentysomething equivalents even though you have more baggage.

Of course, if you were a twentysomething my perspective would be different, and I’d be sizing you up for a relationship instead of as a pump & dump.

“Quash a hamster?” I needed to be quashed based on my post? I’m just joining what I thought was an interesting and insightful conversation. I’m sorry I brought my story here, even though you are discussing single women.

I don’t want to quash anyone. I want to quash ideas. You women are all the same: you take everything so personally. The term “hamster” on these blogs refers to the self-delusions and rationalizations that women make to make the world consistent with their own views. The contortions of logic are astounding to any man who is capable of applying even a little bit of cold masculine logic.

@David Collard

I wish people would stop denigrating cats. Cats are great.

Dude, where did I say anything bad about cats? I love cats too. Because I love cats, I’m glad that there are post-menopausal spinsters to take care of them. Just do the math: if each spinster from age 40 to age 80 keep three cats at a time, each of which lives for ten years, then that’s twelve cats that are saved from being euthanized.

I admit that it’s an expensive way to save cats, though. The livestyles of all these spinsters are only supported through government transfer programs supported by high taxes and regulations at the expense of the productive class. It would be much less expensive if the government just stopped supporting the spinsters and just took care of the cats directly. It would save the poor cats, and make the spinsters choose a path that sustains western culture instead of rotting it out from the inside.

I admit that it’s an expensive way to save cats, though. The livestyles of all these spinsters are only supported through government transfer programs supported by high taxes and regulations at the expense of the productive class. It would be much less expensive if the government just stopped supporting the spinsters and just took care of the cats directly. It would save the poor cats, and make the spinsters choose a path that sustains western culture instead of rotting it out from the inside.
Heh funniest thing I read on this thread, as a married cat lady (and hubby comes from a long line of cat owners) I approve this comment. 😀

You’ve finally decided that you should mature out of your infantile fascination with bad boys and players and settle for a higher beta.

Not to be a white knight, but if she comes from an Arab background “carousel riding/chasing” might not be the reason for her single-ness. In Islam, women technically aren’t allowed to marry outside the religion (men can). If she was raised in America by a Muslim family, it’s fairly likely she wouldn’t be permitted to enter a relationship with any of the men around her, alpha or not (Muslims are a minority in the U.S).

I might be wrong (She didn’t specify whether her family was Muslim or Arab Christian), but I’m just sayin’ its a possibility.

greenlander –It would be much less expensive if the government just stopped supporting the spinsters and just took care of the cats directly. It would save the poor cats, and make the spinsters choose a path that sustains western culture instead of rotting it out from the inside.

i think youre edging v near the Truth there…

i believe that, at root, feminism is a Conspiracy originally organized by felines to cut out the male middleman and mass-colonize the apartments and condos of single Western females, as spinsters slowly cede their weak wills to the fuzzy little sneeks . . . forging a direct pipeline from the Government Paychecks to the Special Kitty wetfood

“an observer, you may be right. That has not been my experience or observation. Perhaps I have just been lucky.

My impression remains that Australia is friendlier to men than America. Our feminists are fewer and not quite so insane.”

But the storm is coming. I would say we in Australia are probably about 5 years behind the US, but CLOSING FAST. You only need to tune into everyday discourse, whether it be in the office, in social groups or in the media. It is simmering and building just below the surface. Particularly in the media, you have newspapers like the SMH, the age and the Herald Sun which are increasingly misandrist. We have the proliferation of female ‘lifestyle’ columnists who pump out misandrist articles daily.

A lot of it is conflation – taking something which COULD VERY SLIGHTLY be construed as sexism and turn into such. For example, the AFL footballer Lance Franklin, who has his own clothing company is branded with headlines about his ‘sexist’ clothing ranges, because they depict women on them (see Susie Obrien blog in Herald sun). Yet I had a look at the entire catalogue on the company website and there was nothing that was clearly discriminatory or offensive (merely pictures of women with boxing gloves on). Yet this gets contorted into, “women fighting for men’s sexual pleasure”. WTF?

I would suggest you look a little bit closer at what’s going on around you.

blogster, this sort of thing is often a matter of perception. I have been watching this issue for decades, and my impression is that feminism has gone off the boil a bit of late in Australia. Football is a soft target, which feminists use parasitically. You can get 100, ooo people (women as well as men) to a football game, so of course feminists are going to grandstand (!) in this arena, given an opportunity. Penis envy really, because there is no way 100, ooo Australians are going to watch women doing anything comparable.

Affirmative action has failed to gain traction here; I suspect partly because women have not been able to piggyback on blacks, as in America. Nobody seriously thinks men had it great here, while women suffered. It is too obviously crap.

And, at least de jure, we have shared custody of children. Feminists are not happy about it.

I have had dealings with cops in family matters, and they have always treated the men fairly.

The Age and the SMH are trendy broadsheets which have been losing circulation (The Age at least). The rantings of feminists get mocked regularly by the likes of Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair, who have huge readerships.

Also, the list of flop female politicians in Australia is long. Two female premiers dumped recently, in record defeats. And the female PM we had foisted on us is about as popular as herpes. Best argument against women in politics I have ever witnessed.

i believe that, at root, feminism is a Conspiracy originally organized by felines to cut out the male middleman and mass-colonize the apartments and condos of single Western females, as spinsters slowly cede their weak wills to the fuzzy little sneeks . . . forging a direct pipeline from the Government Paychecks to the Special Kitty wetfood

Not fair on the cats. Spinsters do not have the correct attitude to a cat — which is to ignore each other most of the time. They are the ideal pet for the urban male: dogs require room.

Cats just require a feral rat population.

@ Blogster

But the storm is coming. I would say we in Australia are probably about 5 years behind the US, but CLOSING FAST. You only need to tune into everyday discourse, whether it be in the office, in social groups or in the media. It is simmering and building just below the surface. Particularly in the media, you have newspapers like the SMH, the age and the Herald Sun which are increasingly misandrist. We have the proliferation of female ‘lifestyle’ columnists who pump out misandrist articles daily.

Look, as a person who has gone through (almost finished) the family court mill, Yeah, right.

Most men are no longer watching the news. Nor reading any part of the paper apart from the sports page. Hell, they are getting their sports direct from Fox (Aus) Skysoprt (NZ). The papers — are seen as biased by both the left and right (google NZ Horrid for some spoofs).

The papers are read by women and cater to them. The same way Top Gear is watched by men… and caters to them. SInce most women who read these papers are forgetting to breed — but the girls at Hillsong, the Catholci Mass, and the Mosque generally do — each generation is becoming more overtly religious and conservative.

This is the high point of the misandry bubble. It is going to burst, probably in the US first, or the more feminized countries like NZ or the UK. Men will survive, because we can adapt. Rural women will. I’m less sure about the urban feminist.

greenlander
May 7, 2012 at 1:38 am
Your comment here was outstanding. We need more of that. We need more men with that attitude nothing takes advantage of wicked selfishness like a player. Nothing makes Dalrocks job of speaking to the 20 percent of women chosing not to ride the carousel easier than knowing they have pump and dumpers and players ready to ride that desperate pussy through their last days of fertility. When the male pill comes out it is going to be fun reading the newspaper.

I am going to pass on Carmen, particularily as I used to date a Spanish woman who for a while (like Carmen) worked in a cigarette factory, and especially as I will otherwise begin to bore you all more than you are already bored by my interest in Opera and instead respond to Queenanacaona at 6.51. No, I have not read that book concerning female Paranoia but it puts me in mind of the following anecdote: Whilst I was State-side, I met a German woman – not bad looking, who told me that she had learned Judo to protect herself from men, and indeed (what a surprise) it was not long before one day a guy with his friends began hitting on her, on a path. Doubtless the guy was just showing off and doubtless she was in some way encouraging his behaviour. Anyway, to the amusement of his friends, with her Judo skills she tumbled him into the bushes. It was clearly unjustified female violence against the hapless man. Women 1 – Men 0 was the score. Sometime later when I was in Chicago (and she was keen on me) she wrote to me suggesting we hook-up – she was nearby. I never replied. Perhaps her paranoid aggression had turned me off her. The score: Women 0 – Men 1.

The likelihood that a woman is going to be attacked by a man is so small that the need to learn self-defence is essentially pointless. A man has far greater risk – and few of us learn it – I never have done so. Women, far from intuitively grasping risk are, like the German woman, fantasizing what fascinates them and what they probably secretly desire (on a sexual basis).

behind the walls
Hmm..I just said (if you read above) that that is the nature of conversations. And yes, what you went on to say, it’s the way we learn about things, be generalizing. It’s only personal to my own story that sometimes I get worried that I will be roped into some generalization being that I’m in my early thirties and single. I worry that people may think it’s cause I’m part of this feminist crap (which I hate) and that I don’t want men to be men. I’m just being a female here and discussing my feelings candidly.
———————————————————–
Predictably the uber literal route.

Look, whether you expressly said you dislike generalizations or not, the language you use discredits generalizations, saying that you understand that’s how conversations go and how people vent…..something like that. But there is no need to make any allowances for how people are, how they converse, or whether they are frustrated, in discussing generalizations.

You then go on to say you fear getting roped into a generalization…..again, boldly demonstrating that you have no idea what a generalization even is. A generalization is what it is, you are what you are. you cannot be “roped into” one. Perhaps you fear stereotyping, check the differences. When men use generalizations they use them in the abstract. That neednt concern you or anyone you know, or any women in the world, if those generalizations do not apply to you, they dont apply to you, its that simple. WE get that. I’m trying to help you get it. There is a generalization, a very valid one, that women struggle in understanding topical abstract discussion, often because it includes (necessary) things like generalizations. You may not be an exception, in that case.

I am surely naive for I had taken all behindsilentwalls said at face value but could hardly add anything to what D had written, so didn’t. She is 32 and that put me in mind of something or rather someone also aged 32 who has been on my mind for a few days now. This other woman who I do not know is a colleague of someone I regrettably do know [Public Nuclear Rejection. Vengance is mine and I WILL repay – if I ever get the chance]. I sometimes read the 32 year olds tweets and she seems a balanced woman. Her photos show she is a perfectly ordinary woman – a 5 or maybe 6 in Roissy-speak. She is single, although there had been a boyfriend. I have no idea whether she desires to marry. She was replying by tweet to a dating agency where I detect she had been speed-dating. Clearly on this occasion speed-dating had not worked. She said things were fine and that she was having fun (which as Cindy Lauper advises us is what girls just want to have). Yet if you consider it more closely this cannot be. You go to a dating agency if you are NOT having fun, so if it does not work out there, then there is no reason to suppose she would return to fun (which she would not have been having before). This woman however works at Encorpera, so I am guessing that if half the staff are men there must be 100 or so men she might meet there. She has some foreign travel and frequently to a company which I know is largely male and so maybe another 70 men or so there. She must have friends, family and causal acquaintances, so the idea that she is not meeting more than enough males is not plausible. Yet for – say – the last 14 years she has not met her Mr Right – and as all she seems to want is to have fun, it would seem she has no interest in him. She may however prefer Harley McBadBoy or Alpha McStud.

It seems to me that these are the only possibilities (which beings me back to behindsilentwalls):

1. She is genuinely waiting for Mr Right, but it looks like she thinks he must have the looks of Brad Pitt the charm of George Clooney and the muscles of Sly Stallone and is thus waiting and wanting in vain.

2. She is a prick-tease, but frankly I do not think she is really good enough looking for that to work (you would have to be a solid 9 like Netrebko whom Pukeko60 links to just above, to achieve that).

3. She is a serial monogamist going through a lean-spell. That however does not seem to be the case for although there was a boyfriend there is no suggestion she was in a marriage or cohabitation.

4. She is riding the carousel in which case we spell that S-L-U-T.

I am guessing that it is a mix of 1 and 4, with the hope that eventually she will be swept off her feet by Mr Right. She is still young enough and fit enough but if you are going to a dating agency – and all you can think of is fun I am not predicting a change in marital status any time soon.

There are few things more rage-inducing than calling master Vag-slayer Wilhelm Richard Wagner a blue-pill guy.

First off, you are both correct. Anything up to and including Das Rheingold is blue pill. Wagner was essentially raised without a father, his mother might have cuckolded his father to spawn him, and his stepfather died at age 8. He worshipped his delusional mother and was treated like a son by his older sister, whom he also worshipped. He married an older woman who cheated on him while he was in his early 20s and trying to make a go of things in Riga, Latvia.

All his early operas have the same theme: man needs a woman to save him from damnation. This is seen in Dutchman, Tannhauser, and Lohengrin; the theme returns in The Ring, with Brunnhilde saving not just her man, but the world. But Wagner was not always that man.

At some point in his 30s, he got a copy of Schopenhauer, read it, and later said: “How can I ever thank him enough.” I cannot comment on Tristan, as I do not really understand it, but I will say that Schopenhauer seriously influenced his three major late-life operas: Die Meistersinger, Parsifal, and Gotterdammerung. (He puts a lot of red-pill understanding into the latter.)

In Meistersinger, the council of Mastersingers decides what is art, and ultimately who a young woman will marry. She is under her father’s care, and he will give her ONLY to an artist who has internalized the rules. The artist whom she desires is a young man whose interpretations of the rules are novel, but not outlandish. I won’t discuss more here, but if there were an opera that could serve as the theme opera for the counterrevolution against feminism, Die Meistersinger is it.

Parsifal shows that Wagner finally got the idea of who redeems society correct: it is a man, not a woman. In fact, there is only one female voice heard in the whole opera, excepting a chorus of flower-women that is delightful (and the garden it is based on in Ravello is stunning!). In a nutshell, the redeemer must first redeem himself, and then he is able to save the world.

I intend to write my three-part series on Wagner and Game over at Patriactionary, leading up to the Great One’s birthday on May 22nd. Stop on by.

When looked at with red pill eyes there is really nothing positive for marriage about a 30 plus year old women unless she is just wanted for sex and to have divorve drama with after she decides she is unhappy. A woman like that has something wrong with her as a wife in this day and age.

Your comment here was outstanding. We need more of that. We need more men with that attitude nothing takes advantage of wicked selfishness like a player. Nothing makes Dalrocks job of speaking to the 20 percent of women chosing not to ride the carousel easier than knowing they have pump and dumpers and players ready to ride that desperate pussy through their last days of fertility. When the male pill comes out it is going to be fun reading the newspaper.

Whatever the reasons, schadenfreude is fun. I’m loving this. As somebody who has his life together, I just don’t have pity on people who blow every chance they get. Women can change, but it isn’t easy, and the remainder of their lives will always see them struggling to maintain their privilege, and it only has a negative, karmic effect.

I’m thinking of bookmarking this thread, just to enjoy the schadenfreude when I get back

Sometimes (in my world of stupid NYC hookup culture), the yellow ball seems to be the marriage minded man.

They’re all in church. Easiest place to find them. (Beware, however: some pickup artists are now targeting churches looking for easy, lonely marks; google “Sunday Morning Nightclub” for this phenomenon.)

Either that, or move to Kodiak Island, Alaska. Male/Female ratio of 12 to 1. Get used to the idea of being with a guy who owns guns, hunts, and votes Republican though. Of course those are generally the best men…

The Alpha “courts” while looking for quick sex, while the Beta courts while actually looking for marriage. The women in this current picture are looking for an Alpha who will court them with a Beta’s objective. In our current society this is unlikely to happen

Not always. There ARE righteous Alphas. They are usually religious. And they use their Alpha traits (looks, charisma, status, whatever), to attract and marry the hottest girl in church….and they are off the market forever. The Alphas that are still on the market, past their mid 20s, are generally the evil ones. (Rarely, an Alpha can get to that age while still single, due to extended education; but he marries as soon as he gets his Ph.D. or M.D.)

Comparison chart:

Righteous Alpha: attracts women effortlessly, marries well, marries young, off the market.Wicked Alpha: attracts women effortlessly, sleeps with lots of women when young; may marry and serially cheat later in life. May pretend to be a Righteous Alpha in order to get laid; targets Christian women with this game. When women — and pastors — bitterly and endlessly complain about the behavior of “men”, they are mostly talking about this subset of men only, though they don’t realize it. (Call this the “Mark Driscoll Fallacy”)Righteous Beta: works his @$$ off trying to earn money and attract women, but is largely ignored until later in life. Does all the spiritual and character building inner work that Church and family tell him he needs to do, to get a woman, and is bitterly disappointed to find that it doesn’t work. Tends to marry in his 30s, and is often a virgin or relatively inexperienced til then. In church, he is likely to get blamed for the crimes of the Wicked Alphas. Also, he may be shamed for failing to “man up” and marry these good Christian girls, when in fact he’s been trying his damnedest and has been getting endlessly rejected. (Again, think “Mark Driscoll”)Wicked Beta: gives up, turns to porn and/or prostitution when he realizes that he’ll need to work 60 hour weeks for the next decade before a woman will talk to him. May totally drop out of the career realm and live in mom’s basement, or may earn well and spend the money on himself.

PS…. Many pastors appear to be Righteous Alphas, who have no understanding whatsoever as to why it’s so difficult for the majority of young men in their churches to get married off. It was so easy for Pastor Alpha, that he almost can’t help but conclude that the single men under his pastoral care, just aren’t even trying.

One of the interesting aspects of marrying a foreign bride is that the courtship process, if you want to call it that, is radically compressed. When I went to Russia I was hunting for a wife and I was looking for women who were specifically looking to marry and relocate. All of these women could be said to be “geographically undesirable”. My standard joke is that for every time zone east of Moscow you go you can add another .5 on a scale of 1-10. That is pretty good when considering that 8 is the absolute minimum and I don’t give 10s. These women all clearly understand that when corresponding with you they have only one real shot at landing a coveted foreign husband so they don’t waste time or energy. Even the most attractive women might only get one of two men to actually visit them (there are millions of internet Romeos but very few men can or will go to Omsk or Perm) and they realize that they are not the only woman the guy is going to meet while he is there. This puts huge pressure on them to lay their cards down.

One of the biggest differences between Russian and American women is that their list of absolute no’s is much shorter. This list is not whether you are a Republican or do you watch chic-flicks but more like how many children do you want and what is the maximum age difference you both can live with. The physical attraction / chemistry is as obvious there as it is here. The women do expect you to have at least something going for you and that you can support a family but that is the ante men have to pony up to play. Once you get past the minimum prerequisites the rest is trying to find out if you are compatible. American women want everything which is why they often end up with nothing, even the good looking ones. While there are very few statistics about the success of foreign marriages, I suspect it is much better than local ones (which is probably why statistics are not collected). This is in spite of what hags like NOW and advocates of VAWA claim. In short, both sides have certain desires and obligations that they both can commit to which makes the rest of the relationship settled and easy to live with.

19% divorce rate w/ foreign marriages from a certain subset of countries, that data is 6 years old, and I forget the list of countries, but it would be predictable which ones are included…data from INS

That ain’t ‘schadenfreude’ at all. According to the dictionary, schadenfreude is the pleasure derived from the MISFORTUNE of others. Schadenfreude is laughing at someone because he was robbed in the supermarket, or making fun of someone who got struck by lightning and died. The logical and perfectly justifiable belief that all individuals should fully bear the consequences of their actions is NOT schadenfreude. An entitled, insufferable, alpha-chasing bitchy spinster who dies alone and gets eaten by her cats is not a victim of misfortune; she’s simply bearing the consequences of her actions, as she should.

First of all, you don’t know my type. The only info you have is I’m 32 and I’m single. So you took that as a type and went off.

I’m from arab culture (which has it’s own complex view for women), I’m pure, never slept around, I’m Christian. I live in NYC. I have a very full career as a working actor. I’m not a career chick because I work, I’m not some cold bitch climbing the ladder. I just have a talent for what I do and I feel so lucky to do that. It’s a very different dynamic here than the rest of the country. Most people don’t marry until very late here, so that makes it hard for someone like me. I don’t like players. I am not attracted to bad boys. Nice guys NEVER finish last in my book. I appreciate masculinity. I embrace my femininity. I will never, ever be a feminist. I grew up in an arabic family with no divorces on any side.

You said:
“Of course, that’s totally different from what I’m thinking. What I’m thinking is “I’m going to bend this dumb feminist career chick over my kitchen table, pound her like there’s no tomorrow and then delete her from my cell phone. Just like the last early thirtysomething chick.” The thought of that is just enough to put a mildly wicked smile on my face, which just makes me more attractive to you.”

YUCK!! I would never even be on a date with a guy like that, wouldn’t even give my number to a guy like that. That would make you SO unattractive to me.

Yes, I know the hamster term. I know all the PUA terms. I read the books and the forums, I find that subculture very interesting. The reason why I got drawn to reading about it was cause I could tell people were using game on me when I was out (and I’m not out to find hookups). I knew it was coming from something, so I discovered PUA.

I’m not a hater, I’m not a man-eater. Relax.

Go ahead and marry a beautiful girl in her 20’s, she too will age at some point and “hit the wall” as will you. Even if you don’t hit the wall, the attitude looks to have done so.

@empathologicalism

Clearly whatever I say, I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t. I won’t try to explain what I meant. You’re having a conversation with me based on something I didn’t say. Sometimes I’m not so good at conveying what I mean through the written word. But I will just let you believe that you “helped” me as you said.

@hurp

I’m not a muslim. I am Christian. But Arab culture is complex. And honestly, most americans think they know what it is about, but the view is pretty warped from over here.

@greyghost

“delusion of entitlement?” I do’nt live like that. As a Christian, I’m actually so thankful daily for everything in my life. For getting out the bad situation in my past, for healing, for continuing to move on, for the work I get to do as a performer, for the people affected by it, for the people I love around me. I’m so full of the grace god’s given me, I do’nt feel entitled or superior in any way. In fact, I feel I’m more solid now than I was in my 20’s. I definitely wasn’t ready then, I was a wreck cause of some abuse I had gone through. I’m more marriage material now. So do’nt say stupid things like I’m some spinster. You can say that to me if you want if we’re in the same room, but you probably wouldn’t to someone’s face. But what the hell, this is the internet. We really don’t know each other. Have some internet etiquette. People speak more angrily online from the comfort of their rooms. (Pretty cowardly if you think about it.)

And from the flip side, you can be angry with women and how they are not marriage material etc and they can’t find good women etc. Well, a woman like me has the same problem. Because I’m pure, I get rejected a lot. The nice guy thinks he finishes last. The feminine woman who doesn’t want to be like a man, who doesn’t want to be a feminist, who wants to be pure for her husband is laughable. People shame me for that. Even nice guys, they don’t want it.

One more thought…

You know, the answer to the feminist problem is not to be a masculinist. What side am I on? Women? Men? I would say human. Everyone needs respect and kindness. I’m not saying the genders are not different. They are, in beautiful ways. But it’s possible to get so upset at some bad behaving women and to lash out by being a masculinist which doesn’t help.

@David Collard

“behindsilentwalls, don’t take offence. A few sensible women on these blogs is a good thing.”

Re:
“They’re all in church. Easiest place to find them. (Beware, however: some pickup artists are now targeting churches looking for easy, lonely marks; google “Sunday Morning Nightclub” for this phenomenon.)

Either that, or move to Kodiak Island, Alaska. Male/Female ratio of 12 to 1. Get used to the idea of being with a guy who owns guns, hunts, and votes Republican though. Of course those are generally the best men…”

HAHAHA!! Awesome. I’m googling right now. And Alaska is very pretty, I’ve been there.

And from the flip side, you can be angry with women and how they are not marriage material etc and they can’t find good women etc. Well, a woman like me has the same problem. Because I’m pure, I get rejected a lot. The nice guy thinks he finishes last. The feminine woman who doesn’t want to be like a man, who doesn’t want to be a feminist, who wants to be pure for her husband is laughable. People shame me for that. Even nice guys, they don’t want it.

So basically you know much less about the male mentality than I thought, or you’re being intellectually dishonest.

1) Please provide a definition of “nice guy” and “pure” in your argument. As far as I can see it translates to “unattractive men” and “not dwelling into casual sex”.

2) Go and look at how people actually live in the real world. I am sorry but it is you who set these expectations, which are unrealistic and not “nice guys”.

In any case, I won’t continue arguing that something defined in universal world to prove against your own theories, which have no recollection in real world.

Who over the age of 18 even has a “reputation” anymore? How archaic that idea is. Guys will date whoever they like, no matter what other people say. If they like a girl enough, they don’t pay attention to hearsay anyway. And if they do pay attention to it, well, there’s a line from “Sex and the City” and a later book, “Maybe he’s just not that into you”.

This post just sounds like some bitter sour grapes from a guy that can’t get women interested in him. And yet how many nice available women sit at home because men (the same guys who whine about the stuck up beyotches that aren’t worth their time anyway) won’t look at them? Perhaps these men shouldn’t be so concerned with the uber-bitches who turn rhem down and start looking at some of the nicer women out there that they can’t seem to see much less find attractive. Why should women be told to “worry about their reputations” when men can solve their problem by not even caring about whether beyotches find them attractive? Grow up and stop blaming women for your shortcomings and perhaps you won’t get rejected so much.

looks like you guys realy upset the “the wall” Just as an experiment ask any unmarried women what an ideal husband will be like. Ask for a discription with some detail. Then look at the guys she has dated or had sex with. As a shocker ask her to describe the owner of the last penis she had in her mouth. most likely they are not the same man. to put more plainly describe a husband in day to day life and describe the man off the gina tingle (sexually arousing/emotionaly exciting) You can practice on yourself to start. You can doit right here on the internet on Dalrocks blog. The behindsilentwalls you have made yourself a victim of western feminism. Your story is fairly common for guys here. You are also born in a time when the party for women is about to end. Your sisters ahead of you have made desirable men unimpressed with todays women.
I hope you didn’t log on here to have your butt rubbed. You do not need etiquette you have had enough of that you need to hear and understand the straight truth. Right now as upset as you are these are most likely the kindest words ever spoken to you. You have ten maybe 15 years and then you will have divorced guys and old players looking to get out of the game.

Regarding Prof Mentu’s comment at 6 May at 11:07 on nuclear rejection:

One of my kids showed me a nuclear take-down executed by a Facebook acquaintance. A nice boy (poor guy) had been saying “hi” to this girl a few times over the course of an hour using FB chat. She ignored him for a while then replied with something along the lines of, “Stop bugging me you creep! Get lost!” Private humiliation in IM wasn’t enough though. This little shrew posted a screenshot of the IM window with a snide comment calling the boy out by name. Of course, a dozen of her freshmen pals chimed in with, “Ew!!” “What a creeper!” and “Get a clue, nerd!”

My proudest moment in all this was when my 19-year-old daughter logged on and commented:

At the risk of sounding petty, I note that behindsilentwalls says that she will never be a feminist, yet also describes herself as an Actor. Surely the non-feminist description she might have used would have been actress?

Why is it (as recently at the Spearhead with Brittney) when a female joins the conversation it soon degenerates (as I fear it is beginning to do here) into a oral gang-bang with the female taking on all-comers in a narcissistic, shaming, rant-fest (whilst proclaiming victimhood). I still have an open mind, however, about behindsilentwalls. ‘Why can’t women be more like men?’ as Henry Higgins might have said [My Fair Lady] – well they can’t.

Ok I will practice on myself: last guy I slept with: 0. Like I already said, pure as in didn’t sleep with anyone ever and will give that to my husband only.

I’m not upset and never was and still am not, I was having a conversation. But it’s not really a conversation it seems.

Started off actually liking this blog and complimenting all the guys here cause I enjoyed reading and especially reading comments by all of you on all the various posts (scroll up and see my first thing). Was here to learn and was on your side. I’ll leave myself out of it now.

But thank you to the few who did offer me a give and take and some good advice too. 🙂

One of the things my Dad taught me long ago, was to see how a woman treats the waitress or waiter. Does she say, “Thank you” when he poors water, or serves her food? Is she polite? Basically, she is broadcasting how she will treat you later – so take note of it. That doesn’t mean that you don’t tap that a**, it just means keep your eyes open and understand. Also, if she doesn’t have close female friends, it’s probably for a reason.

Too many guys see what they want to see, rather than what is really there. I tend be skeptical unless proven otherwise. So she has to prove to me that she is worth more than a slam-bam-thank-you-maam. She has a short period of time to do that. The key thing to remember is women are easily replaceable – you aren’t. A lot of women want what you have to offer – the more who are willing to spread their legs, the more want what you are putting out there. So know your worth and never short-change yourself. Of course, the flip side of that is if they aren’t spreading their legs, look to your actions to see why. They don’t know you, so you are telling them that your aren’t someone they would want. Understand women, and use it to your benefit.

Women just tend to pick up on what you are sending out faster – so use it as a gauge. It will benefit you in business as well, since people will trust you is you show them you are someone who shoots straight and tells it like it is. Whether they may want to hear that or not – they will respect you for it.

@behindsilentwalls
Either that, or move to Kodiak Island, Alaska. Male/Female ratio of 12 to 1.

Silicon Valley – and not LA which would be Silicone Valley… The ratio in Sllicon Valley is 7 males to 1 – of course if you exclude the ones batting on the same team it may be 6 to 1 – but either way, every woman gets 2 points just by being female and average. I never liked those odds – didn’t do too badly when I was in that area, but I don’t like working that hard for a 5 that is a 7 due to geography…

And don’t take some of the anger personally – there are guys on here who have been put through the wringer – or others that blame women because they tried to be a “nice guy” without understanding that they are trying to be someone they aren’t. I learned long ago, not to try to be “nice” – just be yourself. Although, I have sometimes gone too far toward “bad boy” but that is my analysis. Since the women keep coming, I guess it’s not what they see. I just know I enjoy things as they are – don’t really care if they change or not.

I figure at some point I’ll punt on US chicks and head elsewhere. Not just yet, but eventually. Fortunately, being male I don’t have a time-limit. So I’m in no hurry – but at some point the women in my target group (18-25) will become fewer and fewer, and that will tell me when it’s time to start looking for a nice country to retire to, sell off all my assets, take my marbles, and punt on this country. It’s going down the tubes anyway – can’t see that changing, it just a question of when I say, “Enough”.

A lot of guys seem to think pissing into the wind is a viable option – it isn’t. You’re just going to be covered in it. Easier to go with the flow, then head for greener pastures. Of course a lot of guys are “leaving” and choosing not to play – also a viable solution. The ones who are angry still have hope and think they can change things. When they resign themselves to things being as they are, they will be a lot happier, and nicer, since they will look for ways to use the system to their advantage. Then you have no reason not to smile – you get to have fun, and no one can screw you over. Some people find something wrong with that way of living – they will always be unhappy. It can’t be helped.

So, don’t take it personally when you see anger. They are just angry at feeling impotent, and they need someone to blame. They don’t understand that women are worse off under the present system, since they can never get what they really want – what their grandmothers had. That option is gone for most of them as well, it just takes some people longer to understand they are on a sinking ship…

No matter, as we are now graced with the presence of Ronnie, who asserts that the idea that a woman might have a reputation, is an archaic notion, as men fancy who they fancy (which I would say rather begs the question). Our host Dalrock is advised to stop blaming women for his shortcomings and told that he sounds like a guy who can’t get laid. (I detect that Ronnie is not familiar with the blog). All this seems to me to rest on the assumption that men will take women on any terms. I am not so sure about that. The marriage strike and the increased price of Moggies may not be unrelated.

Slightly off topic…. but I remembered this the other day, and suddenly it hit me, that this rare “exception that proves the rule” story might be instructive to the Manosphere, and our female orbiters and critics….

A guy I used to know, C., played guitar in a heavy metal band. As if that wasn’t enough, he’s tall, and good looking and rides a motorcycle, too. This combo put him beyond “Alpha” and into the uber-Alpha (<<1% of the population) category. So it should not surprise any of you manospherians, that he was overrun with female attention. He insists that the Mark Wahlberg movie, "Rock Star", is totally realistic, especially regarding the sexual excesses of the rock world. Naturally, he took full advantage of the situation. With legions of willing female groupies at his beck and call, he was able to select only the hottest of the hot — 9's and 10's, models and similar — and he enjoyed them frequently and thoroughly….

Until he became a Christian.

Fast forward a few years… When I met him, C. was a lonely, tall, handsome, long-haired Harley-riding, worship guitarist. He was still an Alpha. He could have married just about any woman he wanted, either in his home church or at several other churches where he travelled to play. And he hated being single and celibate just as much as I did. But there was a catch: By bedding dozens, perhaps hundreds, of 9s and 10s during his rock-star days, he had — by his own sad admission — ruined himself for normal, average girls. He just couldn’t find regular women attractive any more, and he lamented the fact because it sharply narrowed his matrimonial choices. But no matter how repentant he was, he couldn’t undo his experiences or their aftereffects — “what has been seen, cannot be unseen”, etc.

Some years later, C. eventually did marry… but, sadly, it didn’t last long.

So… what’s so noteworthy about this story? The only thing exceptional about this story, is that the genders are reversed. Rare, rare is the man who is in a position to “ruin” himself with lots of hot “Alpha” women, as C. did. But due to the much more “driven” nature of male sexuality, almost any normal woman can, if she so chooses, “ruin” herself by bedding lots of Alpha men. And many do. And sure enough, they destroy their ability to be attracted to normal guys, and if they do manage to eventually marry one, their marriages tend to fail.

Easy, lonely marks? Are you serious? Are you one of those people who thinks that guys like me are “defiling virgins”? I’m surprised you of all people would white knight for sluts who go to churches looking for a chump to marry when they get worried about not being married and not having kids yet.

What is with this fear of a invasion of churches by PUAs? There aren’t that many of us doing this. Rather than be fearful of a small group of PUAs, you should be more concerned about the number of “former” sluts going to church to find chumps to marry (and later divorce).

As the white knighting as a symptom of the blue pill ends more and more good beta men will see it this way
“PUAs who go to church to give the church sluts what they want are doing noble work by saving beta males from predation by these parasitic sluts. The women are happy, the betas are being saved, and the PUAs are happy. Everybody wins! *” ( would love to sit in as a hard core fearless preacher does a sermon with that theme)
Openly speaking of this is good for putting feral hypergamy in check. It is the young girls that actually see and learn. The post puberty women immersed in feminised pop culture are just going out to get their entitled to dick and empowered happiness and you’re not to judge.

pb
I hope she doesn’t just leave also. Everything I posted here I would tell to my own daughter (she is 11 now) A little early now but as soon as sexual interest starts these conversations will be had with straight no romantic bullshit talk . She actually seem like she would be a good woman for a man to be involved with. Hate to see that go to waste.

@behindsilentwalls:
“I’m actually so thankful daily for everything in my life. For getting out the bad situation in my past, for healing, for continuing to move on, for the work I get to do as a performer, for the people affected by it, for the people I love around me. I’m so full of the grace god’s given me, I do’nt feel entitled or superior in any way.”
Your pride is showing. Also, the bad punctuation. 🙂

Also, in support of TFH (eventhough I’m not a player, one has to recognise truth when it is spoken):
Women CHOOSE PUAs. With their active choice in selecting for PUAs, they are also CHOOSING TO DISRESPECT nice guys.
There is no saying it any other way.
Women do not live in communes of 100 women to 1 man, then saying “I had no choice, I had to pick him”.
They select, based on the principle of “least worst choice”: the guy who they can be sure their friends won’t diss them over for choosing, the guy whom their parents think is in line with the mores of “have fun when you’re young” or even “this will be a learning experience for her”.

Why is that always being mis-recognised though? PUAs are evil manipulators … but the girls who choose them need to be rescued?
It’s hard to feel sympathy for a thief who gets stolen from: The “nice girl” who chooses a PUA over the nice guys, is choosing to disrespect nice guys – there is no other way to see it.
Does such a person deserve the respect of nice guys later, when HE is seen as an easy mark, with every question of his met with the eternal female response of “If you are a nice guy, you will not ask that question! I will tell all my friends you are a creep!”?

@George Booth:
Since women make their choices about whether to be with you based on how many other women are attracted to you (it’s called preselection, look it up),
you may have a problem with your stance.
There is a widespread assumption that the good guys get the girl … in the end.
The sentence should read, the “good guys get the girl who will complain to him about her past relationships and how he doesn’t measure up and he is lucky to have her, in the end”.
If you want the kind of girl that doesn’t respond to game, you are either looking at someone younger, religious, presumably doesn’t speak English, and is less educated.
The current relationship paradigm is very risky for men actually looking for an equal and a helpmate (you are also a helpmate to her too, and it is necessary to be with someone interested to work after marriage because what are the odds you are going to be the guy earning twice the salary, in a company competing against other single women, and if you lose your job it’s necessary to have a safety net).
Big man-mountain patriarch attitudes get people in trouble when it comes to their commitment and responsibility (Superman gets blamed for not being everywhere at once and helping everyone … who gives him a hand?) Besides, I think letting women be equal, shows the man how much she appreciates him.
Posters in the past have spoken about how a shiftless alpha gets paid by his harem,
time for women to do the same for the regular guy they are in a relationship with.
Otherwise, she’s getting commitment on the cheap and cheating the family out of extra income.
Is that okay in the modern day?

As a former church good guy, i do not recall animosity towards the puas.

However, it was always incredibly galling to see the girls throwing themselves with such enthusiasm at guys whose intentions were always quite clear.

By the time i got to age thirty and my status was improving, i had lost a lot of the respect i used to have for church women. Their behaviour towards the single men was frequently disrespectful and not all reflective of prospective wife behaviour.

Those women who would accuse this as a case of unforgivesness probably have yet to experience the relational ostracism that men commonly have for their third decade.

An observer
I find women thrive on social herd status,hypergamy, and gina tingle.That is all that matters. Even children are there to give the woman status as a mother and as a source of income. A woman goes to church and calls her self christian to give themselves social virtue. To hell will serving god I am a christian woman. No different than a push up bra,make up, or a fancing title like school teacher to impress the herd. Only beta men actually try to live by the word of god.

Women often accuse men of seeking status through their job, possessions and such. I should be less surprised to recall that women often project onto others their unwillingness to recognise that women are far more status conscious than men, or any of their own faults, really. Thanks for reminding me.

At some level, they may intuit the behaviour but deny culpability (and sidestep logic or rationality) and blame men for almost any issue. Hence we get the man shortage, the pay gap, affirmative action, and van rooinek’s newly named ‘Mark Driscoll Fallacies.’

Church would have been a much nicer place without these complications. Friends asked whether i miss being part of one. Yes and no: i do miss some friendships, but not the misandry, the suspicion, paranoia, backstabbing and death by words that gets unleashed all too often.

You seem to think that doing well with women is somehow wrong, and that a man who works to become better and better at this, is a predator.

“Doing well” with a woman, means (a) determining if she’s worth marrying, if so, (b) marrying her, (c) having sex with her, (d) having and raising children with her, and (e) growing old with her. I got a-c covered, d is in progress… e will come in good time. How about you?

, anyone who uses language like ‘easy, lonely marks’ has never actually gotten a woman attracted to them

If we ever meet face to face, you can discuss this with my wife of 10 years, the mother of my 3 children.

the truth is 100% the opposite of what whiteknights think, it is actually accurate to say that slutty women use church to swindle beta males, who are easy, lonely marks

Actually both are true. I have seen predatory women targeting beta males, and I have seen lawless seducers target broken women.

No, dude, you clearly need to learn to read. I said BOTH phenomena are true. Sleazy guys going to church trying to seduce weak-willed women — easy marks — really happens. Sometimes they are women with promiscuous pasts who are sincerely trying to put that life behind them, but “the spirit is willling but the flesh is weak”. And hypergamous sluts whose expiration date approaches, trying to snag a clueless beta, also happens, I never denied and in fact I’ve seen it.

BOTH are wrong, according to Scripture. Don’t let your justified complaints about un-addressed female sin, blind you to the fact that some males sin too. After all, the sluts needed someone to sin with, otherwise how could they be sluts?

http://www.cathnews.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=31186
An article from Australia saying much the same thing, although it does list men earning less than the average wage as not being included in the statistics. Which is quite unfair, since not all women need nor want a wealthy husband. The usual suspects chime in.

Yeah the statistics in that one are a tad misleading, as Mark pointed out over at his blog — it is a bit of an apples to oranges thing, because the number of women stated doesn’t “back out” those who are already in relationships, or even married (while it does back these out from the male figure). So it’s goosed. It would have been better had they not goosed the numbers.

You changed your stance later on. Your initial statement was that PUAs were the only bad ones

I made no such statement or implication, not here, not ever. Far from it. One of my oft-repeated themes here and at other blogs, is that indeed, “good Christian women” are often anything but that. I was terribly mistreated by that wicked breed in my single days, you have nothing to teach me about them. And I have NEVER denied their existence.

However, it ABSOLUTELY IS TRUE that, besides the heartless church sluts who are the PUAs primary “Sunday Morning” target, there is also another category of women in church: those who are trying to leave their immoral past behind, and for whom a smooth talking Alpha or PUA Alpha-mimic is like booze in front of an alcoholic. They are indeed lonely and weak, easy marks, and some of them are sincerely trying to go clean and the PUAs aren’t helping matters. You can have the hardened church sluts for all I care… throw the wolves to the wolves… but are you sure those are the ONLY ones you are bedding?

PUA’s who imagine themselves to be doing the “Lord’s work”, are in for a rude awakening. Perhaps the existence of such PUAs is indeed God’s justice being meted out to those horrible church girls, but be warned…. “Offenses must come, but WOE unto him, by whom the offense comes!”

PUAs are tiny in number, but church sluts preying on beta males might even be the majority of single women in churches

I suspect you’re right about the church sluts, but you’re wrong about PUAs… there are a lot more than you realize. Go read my “categories” post above… read carefully about the “wicked alphas”…they are not at all uncommon, and SOME OF THEM ARE PASTORS… which is the perfect cover if you want to get inside a girl’s emotional safety zone for purposes of seduction.

a couple of other commenters, such as PMAFT and P Ray, have also corrected you

And go back to the very top of the thread — my quote, reposted from elsewhere by Dalrock:

Memo to the “ladies” — If you are rude to a man you’re not interested in, word may get around and the guy you ARE interested in, may never try. It’s even worse if you put down your unwanted suitor PUBLICLY, in front of a crowd… NONE of those men will ever try. (Yes, i’ve even seen that.)

Does that sound like something that would be said, by a guy who thinks that only PUAs are the bad guys? Ridiculous.

I suspect that your real reason for disliking me, is NOT that I claim PUAs are the “ONLY” bad guys (which I never, ever, did or would), but simply that I dare to assert that PUAs are bad at all. Well, take that up with the Lord.

PUA’s who imagine themselves to be doing the “Lord’s work”, are in for a rude awakening. Perhaps the existence of such PUAs is indeed God’s justice being meted out to those horrible church girls, but be warned…. “Offenses must come, but WOE unto him, by whom the offense comes!”

This is my view as well. God used Babylon to punish Judah, and then punished Babylon thereafter. God commands us not to fornicate. He may give promiscuous EAPs over to their lustful fornication as a means of judgment against them, but it doesn’t mean that the fornication itself is holy and pleasing to Him.

“PS…. Many pastors appear to be Righteous Alphas, who have no understanding whatsoever as to why it’s so difficult for the majority of young men in their churches to get married off. It was so easy for Pastor Alpha, that he almost can’t help but conclude that the single men under his pastoral care, just aren’t even trying.”

Indeed. That’s my gut feeling about Driscoll… he’s probably one of those guys who could get any girl he wanted, easily. So he has no clue about how to help the 80-90% of men for whom relationships are a terrible struggle.

those who are trying to leave their immoral past behind, and for whom a smooth talking Alpha or PUA Alpha-mimic is like booze in front of an alcoholic. They are indeed lonely and weak, easy marks, and some of them are sincerely trying to go clean and the PUAs aren’t helping matters.

You are wrong about this. These women only “repent” when they’re worried about their looks fading and having kids before it is too late. It’s really convenient that these women “repent” as soon as they need a chump to bail them out of their lifestyle. There’s a saying that goes “women turn to God when the devil wants nothing more to do with them”. That is what is happening in churches not real repentance.

I suspect you’re right about the church sluts, but you’re wrong about PUAs… there are a lot more than you realize.

There is no army of PUAs invading churches. This is as absurd as the satanic ritual abuse panic was in the 80s.

God commands us not to fornicate. He may give promiscuous EAPs over to their lustful fornication as a means of judgment against them, but it doesn’t mean that the fornication itself is holy and pleasing to Him.

You can’t seriously equivocate sluts with the PUAs. The only sin PUAs are guilty of is fornication. The sluts in church are also guilty of fornication and fraud, lying, and theft by their attempts to lock in a chump to marry (and later divorce). Add murder if the sluts have had an abortion. No one can seriously say that the PUAs and the sluts are equally as sinful.

No, of course not. They’ve always been there, no need to invade. As I said, some of them are pastors. You and your “Sunday Morning Nightclub” PUA game, merely put a name on something that had already been going on for some time.

Once in my late teens or early 20s, when I was still a bit naive, I got into a conversation with a guy in Topanga Canyon, about the Lord. Didn’t go well. He made some comments about how “Christian girls were the best” — mimicking a female orgasmic gasp, “Oh.. Oh.. Oh Jesus!”” I wanted to rebuke him for his blasphemy and for his slander of good Christian girls, but some deep intuition spoke to my spirit and told me to keep my mouth shut, that he was telling the truth. Sadly, I was to learn this more directly in years to come. So yes, PUA were targeting Christian chickies almost 30 years ago. Long before you thought of it.

Hiding behind ‘scripture’ and ‘the Lord’ is also fraudulent, when he is unwilling to apply biblical standards of conduct onto women

I have NEVER exempted women from biblical standards, and you know it. My position is and always has been, that saving sex til marriage is the divine command for both sexes. And that a person of either sex, who truly repents, can be redeemed even if they’ve had hundreds of partners (though of course earthly consequences of that may not magically go away.)

You’re probably referring to the fact that I mentioned, on another thread, that I once dated a reformed ex-hooker with a partner count in excess of 400. It’s true, I did. I met her in a Bible study (where else, LOL.) Never once did I say that behavior was okay, only that it was forgiveable IF someone repents. Likewise, your “Sunday Morning Nightclub” activities are forgiveable IF you repent… but apparently you haven’t yet.

I think you are defining ‘PUA’ as *any* man who has sex with a church woman without marrying her.

No, in some cases the girl is the seducer. And in some cases, young lovers let things get out of hand. Not every fornicator is a PUA. But by your own admission, YOU are. And you have the nerve to lecture me? That’s really rich.

you forgot the PUA who deliberrately wen to church camps… mainly for the girlies

No, I didn’t. In fact it goes even farther back in history, to the days of the old fashioned tent revivals. However, as Leon Podles notes…

Among American young men it is a matter of folklore that a revival is an excellent place to pick up a young woman; but apparently not even the prospect of sexually excited women was enough to get men interested in churchAmong American young men it is a matter of folklore that a revival is an excellent place to pick up a young woman; but apparently not even the prospect of sexually excited women was enough to get men interested in church
“The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity”, page 30.
free online e-book; http://www.podles.org/church-impotent.htm

Van, by my count I am ten or so years older than you. I can recall scandals within the church around divorces in the eldership (and people being stood down for this).
My point was that the “Sunday Morning Nightclub” has always existed. There are ways around this.

THe best example of this is Parachute, the Christian Music Festival that is hele every summer in NZ. Now, I used to work with them (the ex still does) and one of the rules is “you can only share a tend if you are married to them”. There is a women’s only area in the camp that is continuously patroleld so younger women are safe, and in the mixed area there is an expectation that the boys and girls camp in different tents. If you don’t you are kciked out (there are simlar rules about drugs and alcohol).

What is wrong, and it has been wrong all my life, is that the gentle guys who try to be Godly betas are basically rejected. at that point, the dark side beckons. We end having sermons on porn acciction instead of why we are tolerating this prolongation of courtship… all fluff, no substance.

FWIW had quite a few years of thermonuclear rejection — but the age alarm girls paniced was around 26 not 36

What is wrong, and it has been wrong all my life, is that the gentle guys who try to be Godly betas are basically rejected. at that point, the dark side beckons

Yes. And sadly enough, it was the darkness that was attractive. Some wags may be tempted to dismiss these guys as the short/fat/bald/poor/unemployed/sociallyinept/etc … but when a rejected good guy steps out of line (for a few moments, or permanently), that same guy suddenly gets much more Christian female attention! Going bad didn’t make him taller or handsomer or richer. No, it was badness itself that is the draw.

Yes. And sadly enough, it was the darkness that was attractive. Some wags may be tempted to dismiss these guys as the short/fat/bald/poor/unemployed/sociallyinept/etc … but when a rejected good guy steps out of line (for a few moments, or permanently), that same guy suddenly gets much more Christian female attention! Going bad didn’t make him taller or handsomer or richer. No, it was badness itself that is the draw.

That right there is the essence of game only the guy is still the christian beta. That is why the “single baby mama heros” pastors are maginas that have sold their souls to the devil. All men should learn and understand game. We then will have a christian man and not some ignorant dupe. Any christian leader that relies on ignorance and uses shame to control and maintain the ignorance of christian male followers to serve as bait for his worshipped bitches is going to hell.

What I saw of Parachute was the same sluts who called themselves Godly, telling men who rebuked them for their actions, that they (the men) were in the wrong.
I was one of them 🙂

Even worse than the silent nice guy, is the one that tells them to get stuffed, and that they’ll pay for their treachery. 🙂

BTW the etymology for “nice” is actually “stupid, simpleton, feckless”. Some wake up.

The only thing women have against those men (to shame them for later “use”), is relational aggression.

Which only works if those men, are after women in their (now definitely well-deep in slutland since they’ve passed what I call the age of chaste believability) same age group.
They are welcome to be part of the 30% in Oceania that New Scientist in 2007 says will never marry.

PUAs would not exist, if women did not want them. They would not succeed if women did not want them.
There would be fewer fallen women, if fewer men accepted them after.
I don’t blame men for being PUAs. Women CHOOSE them.
If someone chooses to be with someone who is going to treat them “badly”, do you punish the person who treats them “badly”? In quotes since the “badly” does not stand up to what a court of law considers offences that are punishable under a legal code of conduct.

To say that men cannot be angry, is to invalidate mens’ feelings. To say that men cannot rejoice in the unravelling of an unjust system is wrong.

That’s pretty misandric.
“a rejected good guy steps out of line”
What’s that line? Being angry at realising they were being fed platitudes and lies to become sheep to a slaughter? Anger is a legitimate reaction to injustice.

Women like to say it is a crisis if women can’t find men to marry them.
What about the reverse? How come that is never addressed? Simple APEX FALLACY. Since some men are getting lots of female attention ALL men are getting lots of female attention.

One of the real reasons behind “so-called” patriarchy that you observe, is that the leaders in charge … HAD A WIFE.
This way, feminists can get her to influence the husband, if things work out to society’s benefit “It is because us wise women advised this guy” … if things collapse “stupid men, ruining everything again”.
That’s why I call it a “so-called” patriarchy.

“that same guy suddenly gets much more Christian female attention!”
How “Christian” are they to be the kind of woman who are only after men who have lots of female attention?
Again, I also point back to 1 Corinthians 7:13.
And also that: you can be religious and bad … you can also be irreligious and good.
Part of addressing the problem (and hence doing good) is letting women have the consequences of their actions. Some people, are slow learners. Those who “educate” them are certainly helping them to learn faster.

@P Ray – Could not have said it better. Excellent observation allow me to continue on ” Part of addressing the problem (and hence doing good) is letting women have the consequences of their actions. ” Every single man or women who has betrayed a honest person ends up being betrayed themselves.
This will bring a person to repentance and learn about consequences ( ie he who suffers in the flesh ceases from sin) or the person will continue down a wretched road of self destruction and hurt those around them – btw 1 Cor 11: 23-32 & 2 Thess:9-12 should be MAJOR wake up calls to Crossless Christians.
If a person doesn’t repent and buys into the “world spirit” – they are deceived. Whoever strives to please the world or themself at a another persons expense is foolish. The world reflects the personality of Satan. It rewards people momentarily, only to turn on them later and laugh while they are filled with excruciating remorse because of having betrayed honest people.
The wicked may exalt themselves for a brief moment. But soon they are gone from the scenes of earth and are explaining to God why they betrayed those who trusted in them. Then they are led away to the Land of Darkness to live with the memory of what might have been had they been a decent person.
Children raised with a restricted part time father for the reason of “mommy’s romantic needs” weren’t being met while “forcing her will” has to face the consequences of the effects to the children ( rebel & undisciplined). The women will turn into a hellish self entitled spoiled wreck of which no decent man will commit to (if any) and her children will rebel and attack her ( Look at the riots in England and the cause of them). If the man takes it right and follows Jesus – he will be turned into a saint and come out for the better just like Job.
As for me, I am following Pauls advice and remaining a chaste Disciple of Jesus, Btw 1 Cor 7:28 is great advice.

“a rejected good guy steps out of line”
What’s that line? Being angry at realising they were being fed platitudes and lies to become sheep to a slaughter? Anger is a legitimate reaction to injustice.

By “stepping out of line”, I mean, I was at a social gathering with a lot of people from my church, and I lost my patience and had some really harsh words to say. It was totally out of character for me, and I was very ashamed of myself afterwards. However, a couple of women who witnessed the outburst, werre all gaga-eyed and sweet to me whenever they encountered me at church thereafter. BUT… before seeing me lose my temper, they had never shown the slightest attraction for me. Only after seeing my darkside for a moment, did they show interest!

This incident by was the culmination of a long series of bad experiences and hearbreaks, a long season of struggling intellectually and spiritually with with the question, “why the f*** am I still single at this age?”, and a great deal of pondering at the scandalous difference between what women say they want in a man [everything that I am] versus what they actually were attracted to [everything I’d be if I lived in sin]. That party, and its aftermath, was the “aha” moment, the “Red Pill”, that finally made it all fall into place for me. That was when I realized that the female draw to the badboy was not simply an endlessly repeated mistake: it is their ACTUAL PREFERENCE. Even for Christian women.

The proper lesson to learn is to act like a rockstar with the girl you want to marry, and keep her as your personal groupie for the rest of your life.

Seriously, if you really like a girl, and you want to marry her and be happy, make sure you create a very alpha impression on her, or at least fake it til you make it. It helps to be her first really serious boyfriend, and to make her feel like a woman. I am a very religious man, but I knew that courtship was a time to be as wise as a serpent, not as gentle as a dove.

David Collard says: May 6, 2012 at 11:01 pm
“I wish people would stop denigrating cats. Cats are great.”

I hate the insolent, filthy things myself, preferring dogs and tame birds. That said, cats do serve a useful purpose; they identify women of which normal men would do best to steer clear.
I have developed a formula to describe the unavailability of cat-owning women.
3 cats = 2 children = 1 husband

So, if a woman has more than one cat, she is half or less available from a man’s POV, just as if she had any children residing in her house. 3 cats, multiple children, any husbands — totally unavailable.
See how timesaving that can be?
Women who are single and wish they weren’t? Get rid of the cats, along with the overweight, the tattoos, the feminist “chip”, and the hypergamy, learn some domestic skills and aptitude, and watch it all change for the better for you.

We’ve all heard the story about how at a function if you are the first to invite a girl to dance she must accept so that the other guys will be willing to do the same. So.. I was at a mixer and promptly asked a girl to dance. Easy game!

“Memo to the “ladies” — If you are rude to a man you’re not interested in, word may get around and the guy you ARE interested in, may never try. It’s even worse if you put down your unwanted suitor PUBLICLY, in front of a crowd… NONE of those men will ever try. (Yes, i’ve even seen that.)”

TOTALLY TRUE and women don’t seem to GET IT!! If women say the emphatic NO, men will tell other men especially if it’s in public like at a bar, guys will go around and tell other guys that she’s a total B*** etc and the “word” spreads and she will get no where with most of any of the rest of the guys. It’s also true if a lady say no to a guy in front or around his friends. None of his friends no matter his hotness to her she will get no where with the guys.

But the main thing these days is ladies have got to LOWER their EXPECTATIONS, quit living thinking that LA LA land is going to magically come swoop you up some day. Like Dr. Phil likes to say “how’s that workin out for ya?” SERIOUSLY ladies “HOW’S THAT WORKIN OUT FOR YA?” Has it worked?? The thinking LA LA land is going to magically come swoop you up some day? NOPE it hasn’t worked for ya and never WILL?? Your wishing and think if you say NO to every single guy that this “something” is going to just “POOF” out of the blue sky right into your lap if you just say NO to every single guy. AGAIN it hasn’t ever worked, you may be getting a f*** and run by some guys but they are RUNNING for a REASON!! The reason is YOU lady, your EXPECTATIONS are set so high up that guys are like S*r*w you (not literally) S*r*w you. Your not a 10 ladies that think your the S*IT your “average” and that attitude of I’m the S*IT is a HUGE TURNOFF to men, even to the ones you so want. That attitude of I’m the S*IT only makes men want to RUN FROM YOU. Get over yourselves, LOWER YOUR EXPECTATIONS. Instead of having the la la “fantasy” 30 page “requirements” you have to lower them to like 4, 5 or 6 “requirements” like (college education, family, of course jobs, some of his interests). QUIT it with your “height” requirements (that only turns OFF men), QUIT it with your STRICT “REQUIREMENTS” (makes any man RUN). AGAIN LADIES YOU HAVE TO LIMIT YOUR “REQUIREMENTS”!!

you guys are all so unhappy?! awww! forget you lot (both genders) , i’m happy being single, at least i’m willing yo admit i’ll never find anyone, TBH, i’m more into my studies as i am a mature student who hope to go to university, and the last thing i need to worry is partaking in some stone age dating game. why bother? love no longer exists! deal with it!

I don’t quite understand what men want. So you all want that 9 or 10, would not complain about her hooking up with everyone, and would court like mad.
And all average looking women are not good enough, and even dare to be hooking up, and dare to reject…
As for you guys hooking up without courting is fine. Then you decide whether you are going to date. Erm.. if you don’t want women ‘dive’ into hooking up culture who are going to be those women you’ll be sleeping with and then courting?
If your wish came true, and women were not sleeping around at all -as you wish, I’d like to see who you’d be sleeping with? Imagine all women will be so chaste as you’d like-you would get those women into bed after loong time of courting, you will probably complain even more…
To screw whatever comes without wanting to be with that woman, and then turn to women in their 20s is funny, unless you are in your 20s too. Well, usually works if girl is well led and likes your money.
So I hope there is less to none women willing to hook up, so you get a bit happier 🙂